Present:- Mr. Vikas Kumar Advocate Vs. the State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 16775 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 16775 of 2012 Date of Decision:

28. 01.2013 Sheetal Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana for the State.

Mr.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate for the complainant.

-- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

Sheetal Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.32 dated 15.03.2012 at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh , District Faridabad, for an offence punishable under sections 363 and 366-A IPC, to which sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC were added later on.

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 16775 o”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegation in the FIR is that Sangeeta , a 17 years old girl was kidnapped.

He has further submitted that it was a case of run away marriage, in which the petitioner and Sangeeta jointly sought protection to their life and liberty.

According to him, the marriage between the petitioner and Sangeeta is not void.

In this regard, he supported his submission by various decisions in Sh.

Jitender Kumar Sharma v.

State and another 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 20, Ridhwana and another v.

U.T.Administration and others 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 242 and Rukshana and another v.

Government of NCT of Delhi and others 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 542.

In all these cases, the girl was of 16 years and some months old, below 18 years of age, at the time of the marriage and it has been held that the marriage is not void and no offence under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC had been committed.

He has lastly submitted that the petitioner and Sangeeta are living a blissful married life and Sangeeta is pregnant.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the date of birth of the girl in the school certificate is 17.07.1995 whereas in the protection matter, her date of birth was given as 17.07.1992.

According to him, the school record is a document giving the date of birth of the girl, which shows that the girl was below the age of 18 years on the date of occurrence.

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 16775 o”

3. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant does not knot about the whereabouts of the girl.

According to him, the girl was minot and the complainant is still seeking custody of the girl.

Sangeeta has been making divergent statements.

She alongwith the petitioner sought protection to her life and liberty by making a petition before learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

The order of interim protection was made on 02.04.2012.

Thereafter, Sangeeta made an application for cancellation of the protection order.

However, on 12.04.2012 she again made a statement not pressing her application for cancellation of the protection order.

She claimed that she made that application on the asking of her parents and she prayed for its dismissal.

Sangeeta claimed herself to be major while applying for protection.

The two claimed to have married on 29.03.2012.

Even if 17.7.1995 is taken to be the date of birth of Sangeeta, a document which has not been placed on file, still she was above 16 years of age.

It is common knowledge that date of birth got mentioned in the school had been seldom correct.

In Sh.

Jitender Kumar Sharma's case supra the girl was 16 years old and she left her home of her own accord.

In Ridhwana's case supra, the girl was 16 years and 4 months old as would be the Crl.

Misc.

not M- 16775 o”

4. case if 17.7.1995 is taken as date of birth of the girl and in Rukshana's case supra , the girl was 16 years and 6 months.

In all the three cases, they had married and had been living a blissful married life.

The marriage is held not to be void and no offence of kidnapping and rape is held to have been made out.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, following the ratio of the cases cited as above, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre- arrest bail.

Hence, the petition is allowed.

The order dated 31.05.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

January 28, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE