Shalini v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 4310

SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021
Page 1 Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Misc. Bench No. - 34035 of 2018
Shalini v. State of U.P.
2019 SCC OnLine All 4310
In the High Court of Allahabad†

(BEFORE AJAI LAMBA AND RAJEEV SINGH, JJ.)
Shalini and Another .…. Petitioner;

v.
State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others .….
Respondents.
Misc. Bench No. - 34035 of 2018
Decided on March 5, 2019
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner:- Syed Amir Hasan, Afaq Zaki Khan
Counsel for Respondent:- G.A., Panna Lal Gupta, Rama Shankar Jaiswal
ORAL ORDER
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First
Information Report No. 0003 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 372, 504 and 506
Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.
2. Order dated 28th November, 2018 notices the gist of the issue raised by the
petitioners. The order reads as under:—
“1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing First
Information Report No. 3 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 372, 504, 506 Penal
Code, 1860, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Smiti Sahay, learned
counsel for the State. We have carefully gone through the contents of the
impugned first information report.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1
willingly got married to petitioner No. 2. Petitioner no. 1 has not been kidnapped.
Offence in her context has not been committed. Evidence of marriage is available
on record as Annexures-3 and 4. The marriage, however, has not been accepted
by respondent No. 4, therefore, in abuse of process of the law and process of the
Court, impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated.
4. It has been pleaded that ingredients of Sections 366 and 363 I.P.C. read with
Sections 361, 362 Penal Code, 1860 are not satisfied.
5. We have also taken into account the fact that petition is supported by affidavit of
petitioner no. 1, Shalini @ Janvi, which would demonstrate that offence of
kidnapping/abduction has not been committed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the case is squarely
covered by judgment dated 23.7.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
3519 (M/B) of 2015: Shaheen Parveen v. State of U.P.
7. Issue notice to serve respondent No. 4, also through Station House Officer, Police
Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar, returnable on 13.12.2018.
8. List on 13.12.2018.
9. The petitioners shall not be taken in custody, till the next date of listing. The
petitioners are directed to join investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
10. Investigating officer of the case is directed to ensure that statement of
petitioner No. 1 is recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code and she
is medically examined.
11. Let counter affidavit be filed.”
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Afaq Zaki Khan, Advocate
and learned counsel for the State, Ms. F.J. Siddiqui.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 4 is not available in Court.
Respondent no. 4 has been served.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 got
married to petitioner no. 2 of her own sweet will on 13th October, 2017. Marriage
certificate has been placed on record as Annexure 3.
6. We have referred to the certificate. In fact, it is a certificate of registration of
marriage issued by Marriage Registration Officer dated 13th October, 2017.
7. It has further been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that parents of petitioner
no. 1, the victim, have been living separately. Mother of petitioner no. 1 solemnized
second marriage with one Laukush 15 years back and there are three children from
that wedlock.
8. Father of petitioner no. 1 also solemnized marriage with one Santoshi 15 years
back. Out of the wedlock, there are three children.
9. It has been pointed out in the petition that both the petitioners belong to
Scheduled Castes.
10. In para 10 of the petition, it has been stated that on account of second
marriage of parents of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 1 left her parental house 14
years back and started living with her maternal grand-mother (nani). The petitioners
are presently living in District Hisar in Haryana. Respondent no. 4, who is the paternal
grand mother (dadi) of petitioner no. 1, has not accepted the marriage and, hence,
impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated in abuse of process of the law and
process of the Court.
11. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Prosecuting Agency in
Court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit it has been stated that in the course of
investigation medical age of petitioner no. 1 has been determined. Vide Annexure 1,
medical age of petitioner no. 1 has been found to be about 16 years.
12. In the short counter affidavit it has also been stated that statement of
petitioner no. 1 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The statement has been
appended as Annexure-2.
13. We would like to make a detailed reference to the statement of petitioner no.
1/the prosecutrix/the victim recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure
(Annexure - 2).
14. In the statement, petitioner no. 1 has stated that she is 18 years of age. Her
mother and father have been living separately. Mother has contracted second
marriage. When petitioner no. 1 was young, she started living with her maternal grand
mother (nani). It is just about three years back that she went to the house of her
father.
15. It has been stated by petitioner no. 1 in her statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. that her father wanted to sell her for Rs. 50,000/- to one Munna. Munna is
a resident of Hyderabad. When petitioner no. 1 came to know about this, she went
with Anil Kumar who belongs to the same village. On the way, Anil Kumar met her.
She left her house on 11th September, 2017 at about 12:00 noon. Petitioner no. 1 got
married to Anil Kumar on 13th September, 2017. It has further been stated that her
paternal grand mother (dadi) wants to kill her. The victim has been threatened. The
paternal grand mother is about 65 years of age.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
16. It has been stated by petitioner no. 1 in the statement that she got married of
her free will and wants to live with Anil Kumar. The family of Anil Kumar has accepted
her.
17. Annexure-3 appended with the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Prosecuting Agency indicates date of birth of the petitioner, vide School Leaving
Certificate, as 05th December, 2003.
18. Learned counsel for the parties have pleaded that all the relevant evidences
have been collected and appended with the short counter affidavit. The same be
considered for adjudication.
19. The facts, as they emerge, are that it is the case of petitioner no.
1/victim/prosecutrix/abductee/kidnappee that she has neither been kidnapped nor
abducted by Anil/petitioner No. 2. Rather an attempt was made to sell her off by her
father. She hails from a disturbed family. Having come to know that she would be sold
by her own father she left her house and got married to Anil.
20. This case has peculiar facts. This Court being a Court of equity is required to
take into account such unique facts. The predicament of the victim and the
circumstances she was facing, under which she got married to Anil, cannot be ignored
by this Writ Court to take a technical and mechanical view of the matter.
21. From the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is
evident that element of abduction is not there. The victim voluntarily joined the
company of Anil/petitioner No. 2 and got married to him.
22. So far as the age of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, we are of the considered view
that interests of substantial justice are required to be considered. On ossification test,
age of petitioner no. 1 has been found to be 16 years approximately.
23. This Court is not required to go by mathematical calculation of age. Cause of
substantial justice is required to be seen. Petitioner no. 1 has throughout been
claiming that she is 18-19 years of age. She has further exercised her right to get
married as per her own wish. Both the petitioners are Hindus and, therefore, their
marriage would merely be voidable, and not void. Rather than repudiating the
marriage, the petitioner as the wedded wife has been repeatedly asserting the factum
of her marriage.
24. In this context we would like to refer to the provisions relevant for adjudicating
the issue from The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006.
25. The relevant provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read as under:
5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.--A marriage may be solemnized between any
two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:—-
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;
[(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party--
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness
of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental
disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and
the procreation of children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity [* * *];]
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of [twenty-one years] and the bride,
the age of [eighteen years] at the time of the marriage;
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the
custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the
two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;

(vi) [* * *]
26. Void marriages.--Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act
shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto
[against the other party], be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any
one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5.
27. Voidable marriages.--(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of
nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:—-
[(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the
respondent; or]
(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of
Section 5; or
(c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in
marriage of the petitioner [was required under Section 5 as it stood immediately
before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act,
1978 (2 of 1978)], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force [or by
fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance
concerning the respondent]; or
(d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person
other than the petitioner.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for
annulling a marriage--
(a) on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), shall be entertained
if--
(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to
operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or
(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to
the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as
the case may be, the fraud had been discovered;
(b) on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained
unless the court is satisfied--(i) that the petitioner was at the time of the
marriage ignorant of the facts alleged;
(ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage
solemnized before the commencement of this Act within one year of such
commencement and in the case of marriages solemnized after such
commencement within one year from the date of the marriage; and
(iii) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken
place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of [the said
ground].
(emphasised by us)
28. A perusal of the above noted statutory provisions from The Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 indicates that Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the
marriageable age of the bridegroom as 21 years; and of the bride as 18 years, at the
time of marriage.
29. However, it be noticed that marriage between a bridegroom, who has not
attained 21 years and/or a bride, who has not attained 18 years would not be void
under the provisions of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
30. Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is conspicuous by its absence
in Section 11 above extracted. This makes it evident that even though marriage has
been performed in contravention of condition laid down in Clause (iii) of Section 5 of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
the Hindu Marriage Act, it would not be a void marriage as per Section 12 of the said
Act.
31. On perusal of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it further becomes evident
that Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act has not been brought within
the scope of voidable marriages.
32. It is thus evident that a marriage of minor Hindus would not even be voidable
under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
33. Provisions relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in this case from The
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 would read as under:—
2. Definitions. -- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) “child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of
age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age;
(b) “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a
child;
(c) X X X
(d) X X X
(e) X X X
(f) X X X
3. Child marriages to be voidable at the option of contracting party being a child.
--(1) Every child marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement
of this Act, shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party who was a child
at the time of the marriage:
Provided that a petition for annulling a child marriage by a decree of nullity
may be filed in the district court only by a contracting party to the marriage who
was a child at the time of the marriage.
(2) If at the time of filing a petition, the petitioner is a minor, the petition may
be filed through his or her guardian or next friend along with the Child Marriage
Prohibition Officer.
(3) The petition under this section may be filed at any time but before the child
filing the petition completes two years of attaining majority.
(4) While granting a decree of nullity under this section, the district court shall
make an order directing both the parties to the marriage and their parents or their
guardians to return to the other party, his or her parents or guardian, as the case
may be, the money, valuables, ornaments and other gifts received on the occasion
of the marriage by them from the other side, or an amount equal to the value of
such valuables, ornaments, other gifts and money:
Provided that no order under this section shall be passed unless the concerned
parties have been given notices to appear before the district court and show
cause why such order should not be passed.
12. Marriage of a minor child to be void in certain circumstances.--Where a child,
being a minor--
(a) is taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian; or
(b) by force compelled, or by any deceitful means induced to go from any place;
or
(c) is sold for the purpose of marriage; and made to go through a form of
marriage or if the minor is married after which the minor is sold or trafficked
or used for immoral purposes, such marriage shall be null and void.
(emphasised by us)
34. A perusal of the above extracted provisions from The Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006 indicates that under Section 3 of the said Act, ‘child marriage’, as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
defined under Section 2(b) read with Section 2(a) of the said Act, as extracted above,
would be voidable at the option of the contracting party being a child, if the petition is
filed at any time, but before the child filing the petition completes two years of
attaining majority [Section 3(3) of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006].
35. Such a child marriage, as per this legislation would be void under Section 12 of
the Act of 2006 in case a child being a minor is taken or enticed out of the keeping of
the lawful guardian; or by force compelled, or by deceitful means induced to go from
any place; or sold for the purpose of marriage. Such marriage shall be null and void.
36. When the facts of this case are considered subject to the legislative provisions,
as noticed above, it becomes evident that marriage of petitioner No. 1 with alleged
accused Anil/petitioner No. 2 is neither void nor voidable under The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
37. Likewise, the marriage would not be voidable under The Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006 because petitioner No. 1 is alleged to be a child under the 2006
Act, however she rather than repudiating the marriage, has asserted her marriage with
Anil by way of giving her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure; by way of getting her marriage registered vide document placed on record
as Annexure - 3 with the writ petition; and by virtue of filing this petition to plead that
she is married to Anil and she has neither been taken or enticed out of the keeping of
her lawful guardian nor has been compelled by force, or by deceitful means induced to
go from one place to the other or has been sold for the purpose of marriage. In such
circumstances, even the Statute position as on date does not indicate that Anil has
committed any offence.
38. In such cases, the main factor to be considered is whether the victim has been
kidnapped or abducted within the definition of Section 363 read with Section 361
Penal Code, 1860; and Section 366 read with Section 362 Penal Code, 1860. The said
provisions read as under:—
361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.--Whoever takes or entices any minor
under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or
any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such
minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to
kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation.--The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person
lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception--This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good
faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith
believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of such child, unless such act is
committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
362. Abduction.--Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces,
any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
363. Punishment for kidnapping.--Whoever kidnaps any person from India or
from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.--
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her
will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing
it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of
compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse
with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.
39. From the above noted evidences, it becomes evident that petitioner No. 1 had
neither been kidnapped nor abducted. By her own repeatedly asserted statements, she
has stated that she was to be sold by her father. She hails from a disturbed and
broken family. It is under such circumstances, she got married to Anil and wants to
live with him as his wife. She has neither been kidnapped nor abducted. In such
circumstances, it would be against the interests of substantial justice to rule that
petitioner No. 1 had been kidnapped or abducted by accused Anil/petitioner No. 2.
Evidently, ingredients of Section 363 read with Section 361 Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 366 read with Section 362 Penal Code, 1860 are not satisfied. In the
considered opinion of the Court, offence in context of petitioner No. 1 has not been
committed. This conclusion of ours is reinforced by the fact that the marriage of
petitioner No. 1 with petitioner No. 2 is neither void nor voidable, if reference is made
to the stand repeatedly taken by petitioner No. 1, the alleged victim, in context of The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
40. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that prosecution of petitioner no. 2 would destroy the life of the victim/petitioner
no. 1 insomuch as petitioner no. 2 is the husband of petitioner no. 1. Ends of justice
demand that petitioner no. 2 be not prosecuted.
41. For all the reasons given above, the petition is allowed.
42. The First Information Report No. 0003 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 372,
504 and 506 Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar and
all consequent proceedings are hereby quashed.
43. Let a copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar
and Station House Officer, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.
———
† Lucknow Bench
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Shalini v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 4310

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Shalini v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 4310

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shalini v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 4310

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021

Page 1 Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Misc. Bench No. - 34035 of 2018

Shalini v. State of U.P.

2019 SCC OnLine All 4310

In the High Court of Allahabad†

Shalini and Another .…. Petitioner;

governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;

You might also like