1. Missing person report — FIR registered — Discovery of marriage between consenting adults — Police coercion to record statement at police station under threat of criminal charges. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 345
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Laxmibai Chandaragi B. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 359 of 2020
Decided On : 08-02-2021
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.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 21 – A complaint was filed by a person stating that his daughter, i.e. Petitioner No. 1 is missing – An FIR was registered by police and subsequently learned that, Petitioner No. 1 married with Petitioner No. 2 – The investigation officer insisted the Petitioner No. 1 to visit police station for giving statement – The Petitioners were facing threats, they approached High Court for seeking protection – Even after one month, the matter has not been taken for hearing – Hence, the present petition – The proceedings in pursuance to the FIR registered at Police Station is quashed with the hope that the parents of petitioner No. 1 will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with petitioner No. 1 but even with petitioner No. 2. (Paras 2 and 14)
Facts of the Case:
A complaint was filed by a person stating that his daughter, i.e. Petitioner No. 1 is missing. Based on this an FIR was registered by police. On investigation, they learned that, Petitioner No. 1 married with Petitioner No. 2. Though the marriage certificate was sent through WhatsApp, the investigation officer insisted the Petitioner No. 1 to visit police station for giving statement. Since, the Petitioners were facing threats, they approached High Court for seeking protection. However, even after one month, the matter has not been taken for hearing. The petitioners approached the Apex Court
Findings of the Court:
The intervention of the Court would really not have been required in the given facts of the case if the IO had conducted himself more responsibly in closing the complaint.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek protection and challenge police coercion to return to the home state for recording statements, citing duality of jurisdiction and threats. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court deprecated the investigating officer's use of threats to compel statements and emphasized recording statements at the residence of consenting adults. (Para 6 , 7 , 12 )
4. The right to marry a person of choice is integral to Article 21 and individual dignity; family or community consent is not required for adult wedlock. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. FIR quashed and police authorities directed to implement training programs for handling socially sensitive cases. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does the consent of family or community affect the legality of a marriage between two consenting adults?
No. The consent of the family, community, or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock. Individual choice is an inextricable part of dignity and must be given primacy over class honour or group thinking. (Para 10 )
7. Under which constitutional provision is the right to marry a person of choice protected?
The right to marry a person of choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the autonomy of an individual in relation to family and marriage is essential to individual dignity. (Para 11 )
8. How should police authorities handle cases where a missing person is found to have married of their own will?
Police should act responsibly by recording statements at the person's current residence if necessary, rather than using threats of false criminal cases to compel their return to a specific police station. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 )
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
