Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagbir vs Bhanu Partap Gaur on 4 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055973
CRM-M-11727-2024 1 2024:PHHC:055973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109 CRM-M-11727-2024
Date of Decision: 04.04.2024
Jagbir ......... Pe oner
Versus
Ms. Bhanu Partap Gaur ......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate
for the pe oner.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
Complaint No. Titled Date of decision
COMI/110/2014 Jagbir Vs. Bhanu Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat on
Partap Gaur 14.07.2017
1. Seeking quashing of order dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat dismissing the pe oner's above cap oned complaint as well as the judgment dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Addi onal Sessions Judge, Sonipat whereby the order passed by the trial Court stand affirmed, the pe oner had come up before this Court by filing the present pe on under Sec on 482 CrPC.
2. The facts of the case are being taken from paragraphs No. 3 to 8 of the pe on, which reads as follows:
"3. That the brief facts of the present case are that the pe oner fixed the marriage of his daughter Meenu @ Krishna for 14.07.2013, when she a%ained the marriageable age of more than 18 years. When the barat of the daughter was at the door of the complainant and the custom of marriage were being performed, the respondent being District Prohibi on Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibi on Officer, Sonipat, alongwith some police officials reached the place of marriage and asked the pe oner to stop the customs of marriage by sta ng that his daughter Meenu is not of marriageable age and is a minor. It is relevant to men on here that the respondent was relying 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 23:04:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055973 CRM-M-11727-2024 2 2024:PHHC:055973 upon the school cer ficate wherein the date of birth of Meenu was men oned as 15.08.1996 and according to which Meenu was about 17 years of age at that me.
4. That the pe oner told the respondent and the police officials that the actual date of birth of Meenu is 10.08.1993 and the date men oned in school cer ficate is incorrect as the same was incorrectly got entered by the grandfather of Meenu @ Krishna who was an illiterate person.
5. That it is relevant to men on here that on seeing the situa on become bad to worse at the me of peaceful marriage of his daughter and the pe oner felt defamed before all the family members, rela ves, co-villagers as well as the in-laws family members of Meenu and also before the bara es. The pe oner immediately started searching the old documents of his daughter and a7er some mes the pe oner produced the register of Village Chowkidar and a Cer ficate issued by the Sarpanch of the village in regard of the entry in the Chowkidar Register, but the respondent- accused was adamant and said that she would not consider the same and only the school cer ficate is the only reliable document. The pe oner and his family requested the respondent with folded hands that if the marriage the daughter is stopped today, it will be a social s gma on his family and therea7er marriage of the daughter may not be performed as in future prospectus of her marriage will be finished as in the society she will be consider as an unlucky girl for the marriage. The pe oner, his family members, rela ves and villagers further requested the respondent that give some mes to produce birth cer ficate of his daughter. But the respondent did not accept their request nor considered the cer ficate and chowkidar Register and declined their request. The respondent called the pe oner aside and asked for the bribe of Rs.50000/- if the pe oner wanted to solemnize the marriage of his daughter, there and then. The pe oner refused her demand of bribe as the pe oner is an Ex. Serviceman and have great moral values as the pe oner served the na on with utmost sincerity, devo on and dedica on and the pe oner has nothing to do with the allega on leveled by the respondent as the daughter of the pe oner was major at that me and the school cer ficate which was relying upon by the respondent, in that the wrong date of birth has been men oned by his father, at the me of admission of Meenu, who is an illiterate person.
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 23:04:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055973
CRM-M-11727-2024 3 2024:PHHC:055973
6. That when the pe oner refused the illegal demands of the respondent and the pe oner disclosed the factum of demand to the Sarpanch of the village and also to the villagers, a protest started at the place of marriage upon which the respondent alongwith the police officials went back from the place of marriage.
7. That however, a7er few hours, the respondent again visited the place of marriage with heavy police force, when the FERA ceremony of his daughter was going on at the spot. The respondent ordered to stop the custom of FERA and also to stop the stop the solemniza on of marriage. The pe oner and his family members protested this ac on of the respondent and requested the respondent that in case the custom of FERA is stopped in between, this will be a great s gma on life of his daughter and she will be declared unlucky and may not get married in future but the respondent was very adamant and stated that these are the Court orders and she will not allow the marriage to be performed and the respondent forcibly stopped the marriage func on and forced the barat to go back without bride.
8. That it is relevant to men on here that the pe oner suffered a huge financial loss as well as s gma of his life in front of his near and dears and also before the in-laws of his daughter."
3. In the nutshell, the grievance of the pe oner/complainant is that the respondent, who was posted as District Protec on Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibi on Officer, Sonipat had restrained solemnizing of the marriage of complainant's daughter which was scheduled on 14.07.2023 because of ac on of respondent, he suffered a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs and also social s gma. In addi on to that, another allega on against the respondent is of demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/- from the pe oner. Despite his complaint, no enquiry was conducted on the allega on by any authority including Vigilance Bureau. ADer that the complainant had filed a criminal complaint under Sec ons 166, 499, 500 IPC and Sec on 7 of the PC Act before the Court against respondent-Bhanu Partap Gaur on the allega on of wrongly restraining marriage of his daughter on the pretext of her minority whereas on the said date she was major and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs as well as to his reputa on.
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 23:04:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055973
CRM-M-11727-2024 4 2024:PHHC:055973
4. ADer apprecia on of evidence adduced by complainant, trial Court found no ground to summon the respondent to face trial and dismissed the complaint.
5. Counsel for the pe oner based his arguments on the facts which have already been men oned above. He further submiEed that it's an open-and-shut case of corrup on and impugned orders are wrong and deserve to be set aside.
6. A perusal of order dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by JMIC, Sonipat of which para 7 dealt with statement of complainant Jagbir, who reiterated the facts of complaint. CW-2 Anoop Singh, who supported the complainant version. He also referred to statement of CW-3 Hawa Singh, Sta s cal Assistant, CMO Office, Sonipat to prove the birth cer ficate of the girl and the same was tendered as Ex.C1. As per which, her date of birth was 10.08.1993. In addi on to that, her affidavit was also proved and referred. The concerned court also referred to CW-5 Randhir Singh, Chowkidar and CW-6 Meenu @ Krishna, who supported the complainant's version in the preliminary evidence.
7. In paragraph 8 of the said order, the JMIC has referred to the complainant's stand regarding loss of Rs.10 Lakh and demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court did not find any merits in the complaint and dismissed the same.
8. In nutshell, the complainant's grudge is that doub ng the age of the complainant's daughter as below marriageable age, the marriage of complainant's daughter could not be performed due to interference of respondent and his ac on was arbitrary and also demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the pe oner and caused loss of Rs. 10 lakhs and reputa on of pe oner.
9. A perusal of the en re pe on does not refer to any malafide reason or mo ve for respondent to stop the marriage. The ac on of the officer was to ensure that a minor girl is not married. Even if there was some doubt about the age of girl and if she had permiEed the marriage to have taken place and subsequently the girl was found to be minor, the loss could not have been undone. Respondent performed her duty and there was no other reason to stop marriage. Regarding financial loss to the complainant, he could always claimed it by filing civil suit for damage but to ini ate criminal proceedings against the respondent would be cas ng doubts on her integrity without any evidence of malicious 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 23:04:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055973 CRM-M-11727-2024 5 2024:PHHC:055973 intent. Regarding the demands of bribe, the allega ons are unsubstan ated as pe oner fails to point out towards the evidence except complainant version and failed to point out in whose presence bribe was demanded and reason for such demand. She only performed her duty in accordance with law and she was duly accompanied by the police personal which shows the allega on of demand of bribe are not correct.
10. The complainant could not prove anything in this regard even otherwise it is doubJul. In the en rety of facts and circumstances in concluding por on, if the JMIC has made observa ons that the complainant had suffered any financial loss, he could file a civil suit for damages as far as the judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed by JMIC, the concerned Court do not find any illegality in the same. Regarding the judgment dated 16.03.2022 passed by Addi onal Sessions Judge, Sonipat, the same is a detailed order and passed aDer giving appropriate opportuni es to both the par es. I do not find any merit, therefore, even the judgment dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Addi onal Sessions Judge, Sonipat does not any infirmity. Consequently, it is not a case of worth issuing no ce and the same is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
04.04.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 23:04:58 :::