Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH115 Date of Decision: 10.08.2022 Gurdeep Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
! "
#$
% ! &
''
! ( " !
)
(
# *
+! ,
- ! !
- ( !
.!
/
!0 #*/*/
)
!
1
2" 3(
! 2
'
- '
' 2
! 2
.
(!
- (% ! +
' ( 2 ,
!' (
-
" !
4 # # 2 (
-2- !
' !
- - &
!
-
!
-! - ( !
/ 5'
2 !
(
!! -!2
-6/ 72
2 !-
# '*
) -'
- 2
! '
- ('
--
!! - '8 !
' !
9
:( 9# -
2 ;
Firstly of course, not even a certified copy of the testimony of any person has been annexed with the petition.
Further, other than submitting that the petitioner and his wife having married each other of their own free will and they also now being the parents of a male child born on 17.08.2017, nothing substantial has been shown by way of any document, to this court, to the effect that at the time that the marriage was solemnized, the petitioner was of marriageable age in terms of Sections 2(a) & (b) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Though l
!
for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2018(2) RCR (Civil) 899, it is seen that though in that case also the allegation was that the one of the parties to the marriage was below marriageable age in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there was no issue of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The Supreme Court held in that case that the parties to the marriage
-3had both attained majority and even if they had not entered into wedlock at the time that they actually married each other, they have a right to live together even outside wedlock by way of a live-in-relationship; and consequently the direction issued by the Kerala High Court in that case was set aside. In the present case, obviously the FIR has been registered for violation of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006; and with it to be observed by this court that Section 15 of the said Act reads as follows:- "15.
Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable."
Sections 9 & 10 of that Act read as follows:- "9.
Punishment for male adult marrying a child.- Whoever, beng a male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.
10.
Punishment for solemnising a child marriage.- Whoever performs, conducts or directs or abets any child marriage shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees unless he proves that he had reasons to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage."
` Thus, any offence committed on the provision of the Act of 2006 is a cognizable offence and consequently I would see absolutely no reason to quash the FIR without any proof whatsoever of the age of the petitioner at the time that he
-4was married.
The trial court already being seized of the trial, would naturally go into all evidence to determine as to whether any offence under the provisions of that Act was committed or not and thereafter comes to its own conclusion. Consequently, - '8 !
''
! '
!
' 2 (
- ( 8
(' !
!
' August 10, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes