Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking issuance of writ directing the State to provide protection to the petitioners, who married against their parents’ wishes, Tushar Rao Gedela, J., opined that the petitioners were major and married, thus, no one, not even the family members could object to such relation or to matrimonial ties between the petitioners. Thus, the Court directed the State to provide protection to both the petitioners and ensure that no harm befalls either of them.
The petitioners submitted that the present Court by the order dated 02-08-2023 had quashed an FIR under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), which was registered on the complaint filed by Petitioner 1 against Petitioner 2. The registered FIR was quashed on Petitioner 1’s statement that she was forced by her own family members to file such an FIR on false and frivolous grounds.
The petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the FIR, the petitioners got married on 05-04-2023, and since then, they were cohabiting together happily. Further, after the FIR was quashed, the threats from the family member, particularly the mother of Petitioner 1 had incessantly continued till date.
The Court opined that the petitioners’ right to marry a person of their own choice was indelible and protected under the Constitution, which could not be diluted in any manner, whatsoever. Equally, the State was under a constitutional obligation to provide protection to its citizens. The Court opined that the petitioners were major and married, thus, no one, not even the family members could object to such relation or to matrimonial ties between the petitioners.
Thus, the Court opined that being a constitutional court, it was also expected to further the constitutional rights of the petitioners and directed the State to provide protection to both the petitioners and ensure that no harm befalls either of them, particularly from the parents or the family members of Petitioner 1.
The Court stated that the Investigating Officer should provide the contact details of the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer, where the petitioners were residing and in case, the petitioners had shifted to a place other than one shown in the memo of parties, the Investigating Officer should intimate the Station House Officer of the police station concerned having territorial jurisdiction over the residential address of the petitioners, who should comply with the present order in letter and spirit. The Beat Officer should call upon the petitioners before 9:00 AM and after 6:00 PM every day for the next two months, to ensure that both of them were un-harmed.
The Court further directed the petitioners to disclose their present residential address and working address to the Investigating Officer, who should not disclose the same to any unauthorised person.
[Deepali v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6923, Order dated 16-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Amit Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Anand V. Khatri, ASC (Criminal) for State with SI Pooja, PS-Jagat Puri.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
