Delhi High Court
Saurabh & Anr vs State ( Through Govt Of Nct Of ... on 2 September, 2015
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1903/2015
Date of decision: 02.09.2015
SAURABH & ANR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lalit Kumar and Mr.Satendra Singh,
Advocates.
versus
STATE ( THROUGH GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with
Ms.Srilina Roy, Advocate.
ASI Ram Kumar, PS O.D.R.S.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.12759/2015
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 1903/2015
1. Saurabh and Roshni have preferred this writ petition seeking
quashing of the FIR No.429/2015 lodged by Narinder Kumar Singh,
father of Roshni at Old Delhi Police Station for offence under Section
363 of the IPC.
2. The petitioners are present. The parents of petitioner No.2
(Roshni) are also present in the Court.
3. This Court interacted with petitioners, especially petitioner
No.2, in presence of the respective counsels for the parties and
Ms.Nandita Rao, Additional Standing Counsel.
4. Roshni has stated that she did not know Saurabh from before
and only on a telephone call, she went to meet him. She has also
stated that initially she came in touch with elder brother of Saurabh
and later out of confusion and pressure exerted by the elder brother of
Saurabh, she married Saurabh before the Registrar of Marriages.
Thereafter, the petitioners started living in Bullandshahar.
5. Roshni has categorically averred that on no occasion was she
taken to the village home of Saurabh. She has no idea as to what is
the vocation of Saurabh.
6. Saurabh, on the other hand, has admitted the fact that he has no
idea about the family of Roshni. There was an accidental phone call
where Roshni had an occasion to talk to him. Thereafter, a proposal of
marriage was given to Roshni, to which she was agreeable and they
married before the Registrar of Marriages. However, Saurabh has
made it clear that he did not exert any pressure on Roshni, rather he
made her understand that if she desired, she could go to her parents
and he was, in that event, willing to end the relationship.
7. On interacting with Roshni, I could not ascertain her age. She
appeared to be in state of consternation and confusion. Initially, she
communicated that she would not like to go with her parents as it
would give an impression that her conduct is being dictated by her
parents who are also present in the Court-room. Later, she expressed
her desire to go with her aunt who had come to the Court but was not
present in the court room. After some time, Roshni opened up and
narrated the entire story as to how she was put in a trap.
8. When a specific question was put to her about her age, she did
not have an answer. She could not even state the year of her birth.
She has only spoken about her two other younger siblings.
9. The parents of Roshni claim that she is not of marriageable age
and less than 18 years of age. The statements of the parents of Roshni
cannot be accepted on its face value for the reason that they appeared
to be very upset with the developments.
10. The father of petitioner works with BSF. However, his conduct
reflects that he has not been a responsible father. For the time that I
interacted with the parents of Roshni, the father kept on crying and did
not speak anything logical.
11. Be that as it may, the record reveals that petitioners, after their
marriage and sensing trouble, preferred a writ petition before the
Allahabad High Court vide Writ - C No. 41582 of 2015 seeking
protection as well as direction to the Delhi Police not to unnecessarily
trouble and harass them or disturb their peaceful matrimonial lives.
12. Such a protection was granted by the Allahabad High Court but
with a caveat that since there was no proof of the marriageable age of
both the parties to the marriage, if any one of the parties felt aggrieved
by the order, they would have the liberty to have the order recalled.
13. The petitioner No.1, apprehending arrest, preferred an
application for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Delhi vide
Bail Application No.1757/2015.
14. A bench of this Court, finding the offence for which the
petitioner was charged to be bailable, did not entertain the application
for anticipatory bail but directed him to appear before the
Investigating Officer of the case on 28.8.2015 along with one surety
and the Investigating Officer was in turn directed that in that event, the
petitioner be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety to his
satisfaction.
15. Pursuant to such an order passed by this Court, petitioner No.1
filed his bail bonds and offered surety before the Investigating Officer
of this case.
16. Having said so, this Court is not inclined to pass any order with
respect to the two prayers made in this writ petition namely quashing
of the FIR and in the meantime grant protection to the petitioners, who
claim to be legally married.
17. This Court refrains from making any further analysis as there is
a certificate of Registrar of Marriage on record. It is a matter of
common knowledge that the Registrar, before whom such proceedings
are concluded, does not make any depth enquiry about the age of the
parties.
18. In any view of the matter, the issue with respect to the marriage
being void or voidable is left open and the parties may get the same
adjudicated.
19. The petitioner No.2 i.e. Roshni is directed to go along with her
parents, who are present in the Court. The parents of Roshni are
advised not to trouble her on any account and facilitate her joining the
investigation in FIR No.429/2015.
20. The Investigating Officer of the case would investigate the case
in right earnest but would also take into account the fact that the
petitioner No.1 is a person of young age and there is a possibility of
his having been misled into this kind of relationship with petitioner
No.2.
21. After this order was passed, Mr. Lalit Kumar, learned advocate
for the petitioner, expressed his willingness to withdraw the petition.
22. Permitting this petition to be withdrawn would not be possible
after recording what transpired in the interaction with the petitioners,
their parents and others in presence of the respective counsels.
23. In view of the aforesaid matter, the present petition is dismissed.
24. The Investigating Officer would not get influenced by the
dismissal of the present petition.
Crl.M.A.12760/2015
In view of the petition having been dismissed, the application has
become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015
ns
