Judgment:
W.P.No.937/2013 17.1.2013: Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is present along with both the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Panel Lawyer appears for the respondents No.1 to 3 on advance notice.
It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.4 who happens to be the father of petitioner No.2 has filed a false complaint against petitioner No.1 making allegations of abduction/ kidnapping of petitioner No.2, as a result a case has been registered against petitioner No.1 for offences under Section 366, 363 IPC.
It is stated that Crime No.40/2012 is registered by the police authorities only to harass the petitioneRs.The complaint made is false and it is only a devise invented by respondent No.4 to put pressure on the petitioners to some how get their marriage annulled.
It is pointed out that petitioner No.1 was born on 5.1.1988 as is evident from the Certificate filed which has been issued by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal.
Similarly petitioner No.2 was born on 1.3.88.
Both are more than 23 years of age, they have attained majority and have been married legally on 22.11.2012.
It is stated that respondent No.4, being aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the petitioneRs.has initiated the aforesaid proceedings malafidely only to harass the petitioners particularly, petitioner No.1 .
By filing the documents in support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint registered be quashed.
It is pointed out that both the petitioners have jointly represented to the Superintendent of Police, Indore and Rewa in the matter and it is their apprehension that coersive action would be taken only to harass them, they have approached this Court seeking for quashment of FIR.
Inviting my attention to the law laid down in the case of Lata Singh versus State of U.P - (2006).SCC 47.it is stated that the fundamental right available to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be interfered with in the manner as indicated herein above and as the police authorities have registered the case without conducting any proper enquiry and further submitting that if petitioners go to Rewa for recording of their statements, there is danger to their life.
It is stated that criminal case registered be quashed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on taking note of the statements made by the petitioners who are personally present along with their counsel and taking note of the affidavits filed by the petitioneRs.prima facie I am inclined to accept their contention.
Both the petitioners are young and records do indicate that they are more than 23 years of age and are entitled to exercise their right without any interference.
Their right to life, freedom and right to marry is protected under the Constitution and merely because respondent No.4 does not agree to their wishes, the criminal case cannot be registered.
Statements made by the petitioners particularly of petitioner No.2 goes to show that petitioner No.1 has not committed any offence.
Taking note of all these circumstances and applying the law laid down in the case of Lata Singh (supra).prima facie it is seen that the criminal case registered against petitioner No.1 is not proper.
However, as the complaint is registered with the competent police station the competent police authorities are directed to record the statement of parties and to proceed in accordance with law and while doing so, petitioner should not be harassed.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, following directions are issued :- If the Police authorities of Mahila Police Thana feels that for conducting the investigation into the complaint made by respondent No.4 recording of statement of petitioners are necessary, then respondent No.2 shall depute a suitable officer to go to Indore, the Officer shall proceed to Indore where petitioners are staying and record their statement after giving prior notice to them and if petitioners statement do indicate that no offence is committed, the respondent No.2 shall issue necessary directions for closing of the matter.
However, if respondent No.2 on enquiry finds that some action is required to be taken he is granted liberty to inform this Court in the matter and proceed only after taking permission and leave from this Court.
Without leave of this Court respondents No.2 and 3 shall not take any action against the petitioners except for recording their statement as indicated herein above.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
c.c.as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra