Smt. Kamlesh Saini vs The State And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 399 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, Kamlesh Saini filed this petition for Habeas Corpus seeking direction to the State to produce her minor daughter Reena Saini allegedly kidnapped by Munna @ Teanis Dass s/o Vijay Dass. Petitioner also prayed for transfer of the case from local police to the Crime Branch and directions for arrest of Munna-respondent No. 2.

2. Petition came up before the court on 20th January, 2006 when counsel for the State informed that police has received a letter from Reena Saini stating that she had left with respondent No. 2 of her own accord. We, therefore, directed that couple be produced before us and in the meantime, respondent No. 2 Munna @ Teanis Das be not arrested. Ms.Reena Saini, daughter of the petitioner and Munna @ Teanis Das, respondent No. 2 appeared before us on 23rd February, 2006. Mr.Vijay Das, father of respondent No. 2 also appeared.

3. Statements of Reena Saini, Munna @ Teanis Dass, Vijay Dass, father of respondent No. 2 and petitioner were recorded on oath. Reena Saini stated that she was in love with Munna @ Teanis Das and her mother i.e petitioner was aware of this relationship. Petitioner was opposed to their relationship and was contemplating her betrothal elsewhere. This led her to leave the house with Munna. Ms.Reena Saini stated that she was the one who persuaded, rather forced Munna that they should get married. They both left for Rourkela in Orissa, where Munna @ Teanis Dass who is a Mobile Phone Repairer, got a job. Both of them got married under the auspices of an organisation called ' Anti Caste Marriage & One-child Family Organisation of India' i.e AMOFOI in Bhubaneshwar. A certificate of marriage was issued and both of them cohabited as husband and wife.

Ms.Reena Saini stated that she was an adult. Her date of birth being 18.12.1987. A doctor's certificate opining her age to be 19 years based on X-ray and other examinations was also produced. Ms.Reena Saini further stated that after leaving home on 28th November, 2005, she had telephoned at her residence to talk to her mother. As her mother was not at home, she informed her maternal uncle with whom petitioner lives that she had gone with Munna and would be getting married to him. Ms.Reena Saini stated that she again spoke to her mother on 11th February, 2006.

4. Munna @ Teanis Dass stated on oath that he endorsed the statement of his wife and was happily married to her.

5. We may notice at this stage that apart from FIR No. 595/2005 under Section 363 IPC registered against respondent No. 2, petitioner also lodged a complaint against Mr.Vijay Dass, father of respondent No. 2 and Fannis Dass, brother of respondent No. 2 alleging intimidation and a FIR No. 647/2005 under Section 506/34 IPC, P.S.Keshav Puram was registered against them. Vijay Dass was arrested in the said case and remained in judicial custody from end of December, 2005 to 17th February, 2006. Fannis Dass absconded with police in hot pursuit.

6. Vijay Dass deposed that he has no objection to the marriage of his son with Reena. Despite having suffered by being implicated in a case under Section 506/34 IPC and remaining in judicial custody, he does not bear any grudge against his daughter-in-law and accepts her without any dowry. He would give her all the love and affection. He stated that when the couple had left home, he fully cooperated with the police and even searched for the couple in Delhi. He went to Bhubaneshwar, Jagannath Puri, Rourkela and Cuttack in Orissa. He stated that neither he nor his son Fannis Dass met the petitioner or held out any threat to her as alleged. He deposed that his Mobile Phone shop remained closed for about three months putting the family into financial crisis. Apart from this, he spent sum of Rs. 25,000-30,000/- on travel and food expense etc for himself and some on the police party.

7. Smt.Kamlesh Saini, petitioner stated on oath that she had heard the statement of her daughter and now realised that her daughter had left of her own accord and got married to Munna. She was under an impression that her daughter had been kidnapped or enticed away by Munna @ Teanis Dass. She is reconciled to accept the marriage and had no objection if FIR No. 505/2005 under Section 363 IPC and FIR No. 647/2005 under sections 506/34 IPC, P.S.Keshav Puram are quashed.

8. In view of the statement of Ms.Reena Saini that she had gone with respondent No. 2 of her own accord and had rather persuaded respondent No. 2 to marry her, the ingredients of offence of kidnapping are altogether missing. Accordingly, FIR No. 505/2005 under Section 363 IPC, P.S.Keshav Puram is hereby quashed. Similarly, in view of the statement of Sh.Vijay Dass who stated that he had not met the petitioner and did not hold out any threat or intimidation to her and no objection of the petitioner for quashing of the said FIR and in view of reconciliation between the parties, continuance of the said proceedings would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, FIR No. 647/2005 under sections 506/34 IPC, P.S.Keshav Puram is also quashed.

9. We find that in cases of ' run away marriages' , the parents of affected parties despite knowing or coming to know subsequently that their wards have left the home of their own choice, lodge report and complaint of kidnapping and abduction. Very often wrong age of their wards is given to show it as a case of kidnapping or rape of minor. The police on receipt of complaint goes in hot pursuit of the couple who are hounded from one place to the other. Hue and Cry notices with photographs are published and telecast resulting in substantial but avoidable expense to the State apart from harassment to the couple. In the instant case, the police party went around to Bhubaneswar, Rourkela, Cuttack in pursuit of the couple. The father of the groom was also arrested and remained in judicial custody. Learned counsel for the State Ms.Mukta Gupta very candidly stated that State itself in this case would have incurred expenses of over Rs. 16,000/-. The father of respondent No. 2 stated that he had incurred expense of about Rs. 25,000-30,000/- apart from mental torture and harassment and the period spent in judicial custody.

10. We may notice that the petitioner after lodging complaint of kidnapping against respondent No. 2 under Section 363 IPC, had also implicated the brother of respondent No. 2 as also his father by filing a complaint under Sections 506/34 IPC . Not only this, representations and petitions were sent to the Office of the Chief Minister. Grievance was also made that in the FIR registered against Vijay Dass, his son Fannis Dass had been avoiding arrest. Even the Speaker of Vidhan Sabha was approached with a complaint. The representations and grievance made to high functionaries were forwarded to the police, resulting in the police being on the hot pursuit of the couple and arrest of respondent No. 2's father. As is now clear, despite Reena having informed that she had gone of her own accord, the petitioner kept on pursuing her complaints, as noted above causing undue harassment not only to the couple but to the father of the groom Shri Vijay Dass.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we burden the petitioner with costs of Rs. 11,000/-. Out of the said sum, petitioner would make a Fixed Deposit in the sum of Rs. 9000/- in the joint names of her daughter and son-in-law and pay token costs of Rs. 2000/- to the State. Petitioner will comply with the above direction regarding payment of costs within 15 days from today, failing which steps be taken for recovery of the same.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.