Disposed

Pooja & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2017CRM-M/10263/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in criminal miscellaneous petition regarding child marriage married against family wishes. Court declined ad-hoc FIR registration direction while ordering police to investigate child marriage provisions and clarified no immunity from legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to investigate child marriage under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; no immunity granted to petitioners.

Pooja & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-10263-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-10263 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : March 24, 2017

Pooja and another

... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Petitioners in person with Mr. Suresh Kumar Arya, Advocate.

¶12

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

This petition is for seeking protection of life and liberty of petitioners, who have married against the wishes of private respondents.

¶14

Affidavit of petitioner No.2 filed in Court, is taken on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer for taking appropriate action in accordance with law on the representation dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioners to Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural).

¶16

As per petitioners, the date of birth of petitioner No.1-Pooja is 10.08.1998 as per copy of Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-1) and that of petitioner No.2-Harpal Singh is 21.04.1997 as per copy of Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2). They got married on 22.03.2017. Photographs of marriage are Annexure P-3.

¶17

In view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, but without expressing any opinion on the validity of marriage of petitioners, Sachin Mehta 2017.03.24 18:44 petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2-Senior I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶18

CRM-M-10263-2017

¶19

-2-

¶20

Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural) to look into the representation dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure P-4) and take appropriate action in accordance with law, on receipt of copy of this order along with representation in his office.

¶21

Petitioner No.2-Harpal Singh is a child as per definition given in Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 10 of the aforesaid Act prescribed punishment for such child marriage.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the observation in Letters Patent Appeal No.385 of 2016, titled as Elaichi and another Vs. State of Punjab and others (decided on 16.05.2016) has argued that no direction can be issued to register FIR against the petitioners as petitioner No.2 was child at the time of marriage with petitioner No.1.

¶23

In the aforesaid case, direction was issued to register the FIR and investigate the same for investigation as the boy who solemnized marriage was less than 21 years of age. Division Bench of this Court while observing that validity of the marriage may be an issue to be gone into by the competent authority, set aside the observation of a Coordinate Bench of this Court giving direction for registration of the case. At the same time, it was observed that this should not be construed to be a binding precedent.

¶24

I am of the view that there is no need to issue direction to the police for registration of the FIR. However, if commission of any offence comes to the notice of police authority, it is duty bound to proceed in the matter.

¶25

In the case in hand, since petitioner No.2 is less than 21 of age, respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural) may take note Sachin Mehta 2017.03.24 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document of this fact and initiate any action against person(s) responsible for child marriage, HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶26

CRM-M-10263-2017

¶27

-3-

¶28

in accordance with the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,

¶29

2006 .

¶30

However, it is made clear that this order will not be interpreted as giving protection to the petitioners from any civil, criminal or any other legal proceedings instituted or intended against the petitioners.

¶31

(SURINDER GUPTA) March 24, 2017 . JUDGE

¶32

Sachin M.

¶33

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶34

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.24 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Pooja & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Mamta Rani and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shamsher Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shiwani Pal and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Seema Rani and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Roma Dahiya and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others