Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash the registered FIR for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that this Court had repeatedly concluded that a true love between two individuals, one or both of who might be minor(s) on the verge of majority, could not be controlled through rigours of law or State action. The Court opined that the cases like the present one, though limited individuals were there in the memo of the parties, but the effect of orders were such that travelled beyond the memo of the parties. Thus, the Court opined that if the FIR was not quashed, it would affect the daughter’s future, who were born from this union, and would eventually result in failure of effective and real justice, and accordingly, quashed the impugned FIR dated 10-01-2015.
Background
In an instant case, the petitioner eloped with his partner, who was allegedly a minor as per the State, and oblivious of the demands of law, they got married as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. Since, both of them belonged to the same religion, the petitioner’s parents presumed that the marriage between the parties could be solemnized and respected the feeling of love and affection between them. However, the investigation agency which was to work as per the existing law, found that alleged minor, was five months pregnant and she refused to abort the child as it was born out of her marital union and love for the petitioner. Therefore, in all her statements before the police and Magistrate, she stood by her love for the petitioner and in none of statements, she mentioned that she was sexually assaulted, or any sexual intercourse was committed by the petitioner against her will.
Thereafter, finding discrepancies in the proof of age, the investigating agency filed the chargesheet. Though, the alleged minor’s father had filed the missing report, the investigation did not reveal any authentic proof of her age. Subsequently, on 17-06-2015, the petitioner was apprehended by the investigation agency, and the petitioner remained in jail till 02-04-2018. Since the petitioner’s release on bail, the petitioner and the alleged minor, were living happily and had given birth to another daughter who was aged about two and a half years.
Thus, the petitioner and the alleged minor, had approached the present Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that at the time, the petitioner was arrested, the alleged minor was pregnant and had made a choice to continue pregnancy and give birth to a child. The parties had made a choice with themselves, and even though the law did not permit them to enter into a marital union, the alleged minor supported the petitioner at every stage. The Court noted that the parties had now been married for about nine years, were blessed with two daughters and they were happily raising their children.
The Court opined that the judicial system was tasked not only with interpreting and upholding the law, but also with understanding the dynamics of the society. The Court’s role extended beyond a mere application and interpretation of statutes, it involved an understanding of the implication of its decisions on individuals and the community at large. Striking this balance required a thorough examination of the facts, legal precedents and evolving ethos of the society it served.
The Court opined that at times, the dilemma faced by the Court could be to justify the State action against an adolescent couple who married each other and continued to lead a peaceful life. This Court had time and again concluded that a true love between two individuals, one or both of who might be minor(s) on the verge of majority, could not be controlled through rigours of law or State action. The Court opined that the cases as the present one, though limited individuals were there in the memo of the parties, however, the effect of orders in such petitions travel and affect many more beyond the memo of the parties.
The Court opined that, “when the scales of justice have to be weighed, they are not always on the basis of mathematical precision or mathematical formulas, but at times, while one side of the scale carries the law, the other side of the scale may carry the entire life, happiness and future of toddlers, their parents and parents of their parents. The scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality will definitely equal the scale carrying law as the application of law is meant for maintaining rule of law.”
Thus, the Court opined that if the FIR was not quashed, it would result in affecting the daughter’s future, who were born from this union, and it would eventually result in failure of effective and real justice, and accordingly, quashed the impugned FIR dated 10-01-2015.
[Arif Khan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 138, decided on 09-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dhiraj Kumar Singh and Ranjan Kumar, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Amol Sinha, ASC for the State with S.I. Surekha, P.S., Fatehpur Beri.
