Jahanara v. Ut Of Chandigarh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 27, 2015 Jahanara (minor) daughter of Mohd. Illayas, through her sister-inlaw Noorjahan

...Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Toor, APP, U.T., Chandigarh, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., inter alia, is for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to restrain respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from solemnizing the marriage of the petitioner, Jahanara, forcibly and without her consent with respondent No. 6, Sabbir. Jahanara is stated to be a minor and the present petition has been filed through her sister-in-law

(Bhabhi) Noorjahan.

Keeping in view the urgency expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, dasti notices were issued to the respondents in the pre-lunch session.

In the post lunch session, when the case was taken up at 3:00 p.m., then Mr. J.S. Toor, learned counsel for the respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh, along with SI Nar Singh of Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh, have put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. J.S. Toor apprised the Court that after receipt of the notices, the statement of the alleged victim Jahanara has been recorded by the police in which she has controverted the allegations levelled against private respondent Nos. 4 to 8. She did state before the police that there was no such move for her marriage without her consent. He further submits that the statements of some of the neighbours and residents of the colony were also recorded by the police to ascertain the factual position with regard to alleged marriage of Jahanara (minor) with respondent No. 6, Sabbir, and all of them stated that neither there was any such move nor was any function of the marriage of Jahanara in their colony. He has produced the photostate copies of the statements suffered by Veeru son of Mange Ram, Awadesh

Yadav son of Ram Adarsh, and Asha Devi wife of Salender Yadav, as well as Jahanara, which are taken on record, and copies thereof were supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage.

Ordered accordingly.

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE February 27, 2015 Pkapoor