Jharkhand High Court
Gyan Deep Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3589 of 2022
Gyan Deep Mahto
@ Anuj Kumar Mahto
@ Gyandeep Kumar ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Laxmi Kumari ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate.
: Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate.
------
02/ 17.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR along with
all consequential proceedings, in connection with Mayurhand P.S. Case
No. 14 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 376 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act,
pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge (POCSO), Chatra.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
FIR was lodged alleging therein that the O.P. No. 2 was aged about 17
years and 10 months, but the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 were in
relationship. He submits that subsequently after attaining the age of
majority, the petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 has been married each other
with the consent of the family of both the sides. By way of referring
Annexure-2, which is the marriage certificate, he submits that the
marriage has been registered before the District Sub-Registrar, Chatra
under the Special Marriage Act.
4. Mr. Anupam Anand, learned counsel has appeared suo motu
on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and he accepts the submission of Mr. Sarkhel and
submits that the marriage has been solemnized between both the parties
with the consent of the family of each other.
5. On perusal of the marriage certificate, which is annexed with
the petition as Annexure-2, it transpires that the said marriage was
registered on 03.08.2022 before the District Sub-Registrar, Chatra.
6. Article 21 of the Constitution of India says about the right to
marry a person of choice and there is complete freedom to choose life
partner of any faith, belief, religion, caste etc. and neither the State nor
law, nor society can dictate choice of partner. This aspect of the matter has
been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many cases, a
reference in this regard may be made in the case of "Laxmibai
Chandaragi B. and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others" , 2021
SCC Online SC 85. Paragraph No.12 of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"12. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M, this Court
noticed that the society was emerging through a
crucial transformational period. Intimacies of
marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is
inviolable and even matters of faith would have the
least effect on them. The right to marry a person of
choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of
the nine Judges Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v.
Union of India may also be referred to where the
autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to
family and marriage were held to be integral to the
dignity of the individual."
7. In view of the above facts and considering that now the
compromise has been reached between the parties and the family has
accepted the marriage, moreover, the petitioner and the victim girl are
major and they are entitled to chose their life partner. This is a fit case to
exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC.
8. Accordingly, the FIR along with all consequential
proceedings, in connection with Mayurhand P.S. Case No. 14 of 2022,
registered for the offence under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of
learned Spl. Judge (POCSO), Chatra, is hereby quashed.
9. The instant Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
