Point of Law: Any failure by either the police or district officer/officials to comply with the aforesaid directions shall be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which departmental action must be taken under the service rules. The departmental action shall be initiated and taken to its logical end, preferably not exceeding six months, by the authority of the first instance

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. I.M. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Nimesh Kapadia, learned advocate for the respondent No.2.

2. Mr. Nimesh Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has submitted that an Entry No.23/55 at Serial No.52 was noted by Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, which clarifies that the daughter of Vikram has appeared willingly and stated before the police that she had her own volition gone out of the house since her father wanted to get her marry to a person which is not approved by her. It appears that the statement of the daughter of Vikrambhai Khant was recorded on 23.10.2019 at Virpur Police Station in presence of woman constable Tulsiben Valjibhai.

3. In the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. And another, 2007 (1) GLH 41 has held and observed as under:

“This is a free and democratic county, and once a person becomes major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one or subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.”

4. It is unfortunate to note that the parties in both the matters belong to same community. The daughter of Vikrambhai is major; she has right to decide about her marriage and her future. The community members appears to have snatched away her right and entered into violence and causing harassment which act are actually required to be condemned. The police cannot be prevented from investigating such issue. Such issue in the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 55.1 has laid down the preventive steps to be taken by the State Government and the police authority, and in the said judgment, punitive measures in failure of the police or District Officer to comply with the directions are also laid down. The necessary observations made in Shakti Vahini (supra) is abstracted below:

“51. We may note with profit that honour killings are condemned as a serious human rights violation and are addressed by certain international instruments. The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence addresses this issue. Article 42 reads thus:-

“Article 42 – Unacceptable justifications for crimes, including crimes committed in the name of so-called “honour”

(1) Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that, in criminal proceedings initiated following the commission of any of the acts of violence covered by the scope of this Convention, culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called “honour” shall not be regarded as justification for such acts. This covers, in particular, claims that the victim has transgressed cultural, religious, social or traditional norms or customs of appropriate behavior.

(2) Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that incitement by any person of a child to commit any of the acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall not diminish the criminal liability of that person for the acts committed.”

52. Once the fundamental right is inherent in a person, the intolera