Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Suman @ Binnu @ Binu - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) Nos. 1655 and 2188 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi, Ms. Suman @ Binnu @ Binu
For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Mr. Jayant Joshi and Mr. Ramchandra
A matured and nearing 18 years of age graduate girl, who has given a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, stating that she wants to go with a boy, cannot be kept in the Nari Niketan against her will.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - PROTECTION OF GIRL - AGE OF CONSENT - MARRIAGE - SECTION 164 STATEMENT - SECTION 363, 366A IPC - SECTION 482 CRPC - CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE ORDER - PROTECTION OF GIRL - AGE OF CONSENT - MARRIAGE - SECTION 164 STATEMENT - SECTION 363, 366A IPC - SECTION 482 CRPC - CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE ORDER
Fact of the Case:
A girl, Suman, was allegedly abducted by petitioner Om Prakash. An FIR was registered against Om Prakash under Sections 363 and 366A IPC. The girl refused to go with her parents, stating that she had married Om Prakash and produced a marriage certificate. The District Child Welfare Committee ordered Suman to be sent to Nari Niketan, Ajmer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Suman was a matured and nearing 18 years of age graduate girl. She had given a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, stating that she wanted to go with Om Prakash. The court also noted that Suman's father had no objection to her going with Om Prakash.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR against Om Prakash should be quashed? 2. Whether the order of the District Child Welfare Committee sending Suman to Nari Niketan should be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would not be appropriate to keep Suman in the Nari Niketan, where all her development and precious moments of life would be lost due to the custody of the Nari Niketan. The court also held that the girl, Suman, who is also one of the petitioners in one of the petitions, to go with the boy i.e. petitioner Om-Prakash, who claims to be her husband, which is also reflected from the marriage certificate is on record.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against Om Prakash. The court also quashed the order of the District Child Welfare Committee sending Suman to Nari Niketan. The court directed the authorities concerned to allow Suman to go with Om Prakash.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1655/2017 under Section 482 has been preferred for quashing the registration and further proceedings/investigation of FIR dated 18.01.2017 bearing No. 36/2017 of Merta Road Police Station, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A IPC and; S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2188/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned members of the District Child Welfare Committee, Nagaur in the matter of FIR No. 36/2017 for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, whereby, the girl, Suman has been ordered to be sent to Nari Niketan, Ajmer.
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that Ramchandra, the father of girl-Suman lodged a complaint against petitioner-Om Prakash levelling allegation of abducting his daughter, Suman. FIR No. 36/2017 has been registered at Police Station, Merta Road, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. Both the petitioners have produced the number of documents, including the admission application dated 01.07.2002, wherein the date of birth of the girl, Suman has been recorded as 05.07.1998; in another document i.e. the Certificate of the Board of Secondary Education, the date of birth of the girl has been recorded as 05.04.2000. As per the ration card, her age is 7 years as on 20.06.2006 and in another admission document, the date of birth of the girl has been recorded as 04.07.1998.
3. On lodging of the FIR, the girl refused to go with her parents, as she stated that she had already married petitioner-Om Prakash and the marriage certificate is also on record. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 were recorded before the learned court below, in which the girl has stated that as she has solemnized the marriage with petitioner-Om Prakash on her own free will, she wants to go with the boy i.e. petitioner-Om Prakash. The said statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 is also on record.
4. A joint petition was preferred by the girl-Suman and the boy, petitioner-Om Prakash seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against them, and another petition was also filed against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the District Welfare Committee, Nagaur, whereby the girl, Suman was ordered to be kept in Nari Niketan, Ajmer.
5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Prakash & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 20 relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"5. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 27.10.2014, 12.11.2014 and 13.11.2014, the respondent No.2 is present in Court from Nari Niketan, Jodhpur. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 13.11.2014, the Investigating Officer has investigated the factum of marriage solemnized between respondent No. 2 and petitioner Prakash. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of as many as 9 witnesses including the photographer and Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat, who have verified the factum of marriage of petitioner - Prakash and Sayeta - respondent No.2. The police has also got the respondent No.2 medically examined at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for ascertaining her age. The Medical Jurist of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur after radiological examination has opined that her age is 17 to 19 years. In her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 the respondent No.2 has stated that her age is 19 years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bhola Ram has argued that as per admission form submitted at the time of admission of the respondent No.2 in the school, her date of birth is 4.7.2000 and, therefore, she is minor. It is contended that looking to the fact that the respondent No.2 is minor, his father Bhola Ram is entitled for her custody. It noticed that the police has also recorded the statement of Principal of school, where the respond
