Allowed

Sakil Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Mar 2021Cr.M.P./318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 366A and 363 IPC against the petitioner. The court found the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was validly solemnized, registered, and accepted by families after a joint compromise.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No.25/2020 and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner are quashed.

Sakil Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

1 [ Cr.M.P. No. 318 of 2021]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 318 of 2021

¶5

----

¶6

Sakil Akhtar, aged about 36 years, s/o Barik Ansari, resident of Star Colony, Power Ganj, Ward No.04, PO-Lohardaga, PS-Lohardaga, DistrictLohardaga, Jharkhand ….. Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2.Sabra Khatoon aged about 48 years, w/o Shamim Khan, presently residing at Star Colony, Power Ganj, Ward No.04, PO-Lohardaga, PSLohardaga, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand …... Respondent

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP

¶12

¶13

/17.03.2021 Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel for the State.

¶14

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2021, the girl and the petitioner are present in the Court. The mother of the girl, who is the informant is also present in the Court.

¶16

The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding pending in against the petitioner in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No.25/2020 registered under Sections 366A and 363 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the girl namely Tahrim Rabiya, the wife of the petitioner are adult and they have solemnized marriage in terms of the customs under the Mohammadan Law and thereafter they have also got their marriage registered before the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. He submits that a joint compromise petition has been filed contained in Annexure-4 whereby the parties have compromised the matter and now they are living happily and the informant has also accepted the marriage.

¶18

The Court has enquired from the husband namely, Shakil Akhter and wife namely Tahrim Rabiya about the marriage and they jointly submitted that they are in wedlock and they are living happily and their marriage has been accepted by the family. This aspect of the matter has also been accepted by the informant who happens to be the mother of the girl. She accepted that now the matter has been compromised and

¶19

2 [ Cr.M.P. No. 318 of 2021]

¶20

she also accepted this marriage. On perusal of the Registration Certificate before the Sub Registrar regarding the marriage, it transpires that it has been registered on 20.08.2020 before the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi contained in Annexure-3 and the compromise petition is at Annexure-4 in which in clear words it has been stated that the dispute has been settled between the parties without any pre-condition. Article 21 of the Constitution of India says about the right to marry a person of choice and there is complete freedom to choose life partner of any faith, belief, religion, caste etc. and neither the State nor law, nor society can dictate choice of partner. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many cases, a reference in this regard may be made in the case of “Laxmibai Chandaragi B. and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others” , 2021 SCC Online SC 85. Paragraph no.12 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶21

“12. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M, this Court noticed that the society was emerging through a crucial transformational period. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine Judges Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual.”

¶22

In view of the above facts and considering that now the compromise has been reached between the parties and the family has accepted the marriage, moreover, the petitioner and the victim girl are major and they are entitled to chose their life partner. This is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC.

¶23

Accordingly, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No.25/2020 registered under Sections 366A and 363 of Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceeding is hereby quashed.

¶24

The instant Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶25

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶26

SI/

Sakil Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakil Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sheela Jha And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Kishore Mandal And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bona Xalxo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Most.Chinta Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Uday Sharma And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Sharan Mistri Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.