Smt. Jyoti Khatik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9144 MP

                               1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                             BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                        ON THE 8th OF JULY, 2022

                  WRIT PETITION No. 8138 of 2022

      Between:-
1.    SMT. JYOTI KHATIK W/O YOGENDRA ARYA,
      AGED   ABOUT    22  YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      HOUSEWIFE,   R/O    GRAM     BENIPURA,
      SABALGARH, TEHSIL SABALGARH, DISTRICT
      MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    YOGENDRA ARYA S/O SHRI BHAROSHI, AGED
      ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRASHI, R/O
      GRAM    KOSIRTHARA    POLICE   STATION
      PAHADGARH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                        .....PETITIONERS
      (BY SHRI SANTOSH SHARMA - ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

      AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
      VALLABH    BHAWAN    BHOPAL   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT
      MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THANA     PRABHARI POLICE  STATION
      SABALGARH DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    KEDAR KHATEEK S/O LATE SHRI BABU
      KHATEEK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GRAM
      BENIPURA SABALGARH TEHSIL DISTRICT
      MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
      (BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

     Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                                      2
following:
                                      ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

7-1 ;gfd] ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls izkFkZuk djrs gS fd jsLiksMsaV dzekad 2 yxk;r 3 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks iw.kZ :i ls lqj{kk ,oa laj{k.k iznku djs] ftlls fd ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ijs'kku u djs rFkk og viuk thou ;kiu lEekuiwoZd dj ldsa rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks izkIr laoS/kkfud vf/kdkjksa dk guu u gksA 7-2 ;gfd] ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls izkFkZuk djrs gSa fd izfr;kfpdkdrkZ dz-&2 o 3 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og ;kfpdkdrkZ dza&1 o &2 ,oa mlds ifjokj ds fo:) fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ Hkh vkijkf/kd izdj.k iathc) u djsa ,oa mudks iw.kZ lqj{kk ,oa laj{k.k iznku djsA 7-3 ;gfd] mDr lgk;rk ds vykok ekuuh; U;k;ky; tks Hkh mfpr lgk;rk mDr izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds i{k esa fnyk;k tkuk mfpr le>s fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA It is the case of the petitioners that they have performed marriage in a temple on 30/03/2022, but the father of the petitioner No.1 is extending threat to the petitioner No.2.

It is submitted by the counsel for the State that although, the petitioners have claimed that they are major, but no document has been placed on record to show the age of the petitioner No.1.

Samagra Id is not a document of age. Furthermore, in the representation, it was alleged that the marriage was performed in a temple, whereas from the photographs, it is clear that some rituals were performed in an open area by tying Mangalsutra and exchanging garlands etc. It is submitted that even the date on which the threats were extended has not been clarified. According to

the petitioners, they have performed marriage on 30/03/2022 and the representation was sent to the S.P. Morena and SHO, Police Station Sabalgarh, District Morena on 01/04/2022 i.e. just one day after the date of their marriage.

Heard the learned counsel for the State.

The primary objection of the respondents with regard to the age of the petitioner No.1 is that no document has been placed on record to show that the petitioner No.1 is major.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, Act 2015) specifies the documents from which the age of a juvenile can be ascertained and no such documents has been filed.

However, it is the case of the petitioners that they both are major. Further according to the petitioners, they have performed marriage on 30/03/2022 and the representation was sent by registered post on 01/04/2022. Even the date on which the threat was extended by the father of the petitioner No.1 has not been clarified. The date and manner for extending threat by the father of the petitioner No.1 has also not been clarified.

Accordingly, it is directed that in case, if the petitioners appear before the Superintendent of Police, Morena alongwith the documents as mentioned in Section 94 of the Act, 2015 to prove their age and subject to verification of the

age of the petitioner No.1 and in case, if the petitioners point out the some specific instances of threat, then in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Superintendent of Police, Morena shall take adequate action in the matter.

Needless to mention here that in case, if any FIR has already been

lodged, then this order shall not have any adverse effect on the FIR.

With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Pj'S/-

Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 2022.07.08 17:59:37

-07'00'