IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Reiterated that, the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy.2. The police authorities should take action within the next eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes to give idea about how to handle socially sensitive cases.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Rule.

1. We have heard learned counsel for parties.

2. One Mr. Basappa Chandaragi lodged a complaint with the Murgod Police Station, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District stating that his daughter Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi, petitioner No. 1 herein was missing since 14.10.2020. In pursuance to the complaint, FIR No. 226/2020 of a missing person was registered and the investigation officer recorded the statement of the missing person’s parents and her relatives and took call details. From the call details, it became apparent that the petitioner No. 1 was in contact with Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav, petitioner No. 2. In the course of investigation it was found that the petitioner No. 1, apparently without informing her parents, had travelled by flight from Hubli to Bangalore and further from Bangalore to Delhi and thereafter married petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 sent her marriage certificate to her parents through whatsapp on 15.10.2020 in which she revealed the factum of marriage to petitioner No. 2. It is the case of the State that the IO proceeded to Ghaziabad to know the whereabouts of petitioner No. 1 and on visiting the residence of petitioner No. 2, was informed by his parents that they do not know the whereabouts of the petitioners. However, the petitioner No. 1 spoke to the investigating officer and informed that she had already married petitioner No. 2 and was residing with him. But the IO instead insisted that the petitioner No. 1 should appear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so that the case can be closed. The petitioner No. 1 sent a letter to the IO stating that she was married to petitioner No. 2 and there was threat from her parents and thus, was unable to visit the police station. The case was still not closed of missing person by the IO.

3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the present petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since according to the petitioner there is an issue of duality of jurisdiction arising from her residing with petitioner No. 2 in the State of Uttar Pradesh while the petitioner No. 1 came from Karnataka. It is the case of the petitioners that the uncle of petitioner No. 1 was threatening them. On the petitioners approaching the Allahabad High Court on 19.10.2020, seeking protection for themselves and the family members, the matter could not be taken upon even after about a period of one month for urgent hearing.

4. The petitioners have annexed a transcript of the conversation between petitioner No. 1 and the police whereby the IO is asking her to come back to Karnataka as otherwise they will come to her and register a case of kidnapping against petitioner No. 2 at the behest of her family members.

5. We have gone through the translation of the transcript at Page D to page H originally in Kannada, now translated in English in which the petitioner No. 1 expressed the feeling of lack of safety. Though the IO stated that they would like to close the case, they wanted her to get her statement recorded at the police station. The IO also stated that the family members may file a case against her that she has stolen things from the home and if an FIR is filed, there would be a negative mark against petitioner No. 2 and they would have to arrest him which would be problematic for his job also.

6. The aforesaid does not tally with what is stated in the counter affidavit to the extent that the investigation officer had at no point threatened the petitioners.

7. The aforesaid does not reflect very well on the police authorities or the IO, the marriage certificate having been received by him and the conversation already been held with petitioner No. 1 where she clearly stated that she was married to petitioner No. 2 and that she was feeling threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station. If the IO could have visited the residence of petitioner No. 2, he could very well have recorded the statement of petiti