CRM-M/39501/2011 of NEHA SINGH AND ANR. Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. on 30 December 2011

1. The petitioners seek for protection for life and libertyon the ground that they have performed their marriagevoluntarily being adults on 26.12.2011, but they areapprehensive of being harassed by their respective relatives. Thepetitioners' complaint is that they have sought for protectionthrough representation (Annexure P-6) to the Superintendent ofPolice, Kurukshetra. The issue has been dealt with by the Benchof this Court inPardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2008(2)ILR 62.

2. In terms of the said judgment, the Superintendent ofPolice, Kurukshetra shall afford such protection as per followingdirections:

(i) Whenever any intimation is received by theS.S.P./S.P. of concerned District regarding themarriage of a young couple with a threat and anapprehension of infringement of the right of life andliberty by the police at the instance of the family members of one of the spouses, the S.S.P/S.P.concerned will consider the representation and willhimself/herself look into the matter and issuenecessary directions to maintain a record of the saidintimation under Chapter 21 of the Punjab PoliceRules;

ii)On receipt of abovesaid intimation of marriage byany police officer, necessary directions will be issued tothe concerned Police Station to take necessary steps inaccordance with law to enquire into the matter bycontacting the parents of both boy and the girl. Thematter regarding age, voluntary consent of the girl andgrievance of her family will be determined. In theeventuality of any complaint of kidnapping orabduction having been received from any of the familymembers of the girl generally the boy (husband) willnot be arrested unless and until the prejudicialstatement is given by the girl (wife). Arrest shouldgenerally be deferred or avoided on the immediatereceipt of a complaint by the parents or familymembers of the girl taking into consideration the lawlaid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in JoginderKumar’s case;

(iii) If the girl is major (above 18 years), she shouldnot forcibly be taken away by police to be handed overto her parents against her consent. Criminal forceagainst the boy should also be avoided;

(iv) So far as the threat to the young couple of thecriminal force and assault at the hands of the privatepersons is concerned, it would always be open to thepolice to initiate action if any substantive offence isfound to have been committed against the couple;

(v) In case of any threat to the breach of peace at thehands of the family members of the couple it willalways be open to the State authorities to take up thesecurity proceedings in accordance with law;

(vi) It will not be open to the “run away couple” totake law in their hands pursuant to the indulgenceshown by the police on the basis of theirrepresentation sent to the SSP/SP of the concernedDistrict;

(vii) If despite the intimation having been sent to theSSP/SP there is an apprehension or threat of violationof right of personal life and liberty or free movement, the remedy of approaching the High Court should bethe last resort;

(viii) In case there is an authority constituted forissuance of marriage certificate as per the law laiddown by Supreme Court in Seema’s case in theconcerned districts, the couple of so called ‘run awaymarriage’ should get the marriage registered incompliance with the directions of the Supreme Courtand a copy of the same should also be forwarded to thepolice alongwith the representations or any timesubsequent thereto;

(ix) Nothing said hereinabove will prevent theimmediate arrest of a person who fraudulently enticesa girl with false promises and exploits her sexually asper the statement of the girl.

3. The Crl. Misc. is disposed of.

30.12.2011Rajan

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE