Simarjeet Kaur & ANR. v. State Of Punjab & ORS.
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-10357 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : March 24, 2017 Simarjeet Kaur and another ... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present:
Petitioners in person with Mr. Damanjeet Bhoriwal, Advocate.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) This petition is for seeking protection of life and liberty of petitioners, who have married against the wishes of private respondents. Affidavit of petitioner No.2 filed in Court, is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer for taking appropriate action in accordance with law on the representation dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioners to Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.
As per petitioners, the year of birth of petitioner No.1-Simarjeet Kaur is 1997 as per copy of affidavit (Annexure P-1) and date of birth of petitioner No.2-Mani Singh is 01.01.1998 as per copy of Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2). They got married on 21.03.2017. Photographs of marriage are Annexure P-3.
In view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, but without expressing any opinion on the validity of marriage of petitioners, petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of
-2Police, Amritsar to look into the representation dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure P-4) and take appropriate action in accordance with law, on receipt of copy of this order along with representation in his office. Petitioner No.2-Mani 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
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. 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.
In the case in hand, since petitioner No.2 is less than 21 of age, respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Amritsar may take note of this fact and initiate any action against person(s) responsible for child marriage, in accordance with the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
-32006.
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. (SURINDER GUPTA) March 24, 2017.
JUDGE Sachin M.
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No