Marriage between two major individuals, even against the wishes of others, cannot be a reason to initiate criminal proceedings. If the couple is living peacefully and has children, continuing the criminal proceedings would be oppressive and an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT

G.R. Moolchandani, J. - Petitioner Babloo Son of Shri Ramji Lal has preferred this petition with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings in respect of criminal case No. 37/2010 (State vs. Ramesh & Ors.) pending before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana, District Bharatpur arising out of FIR No. 123/2009 registered with Police Station Uchchain, Bharatpur for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner Babloo solemnized his marriage with Shakuntla @ Payal D/o Bhogiram on 23.05.2009 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur and both the spouses were major at the time of their marriage since date of birth of Shakuntla is 01.01.1991 and she had attained age of majority at the time of her marriage, because father of Smt. Shakuntla @ Payal was not agreeable to the marriage, so a false FIR has been lodged against Babloo.

The couple is living comfortably after marriage and two siblings have born out of the wedlock, since investigating agency has furnished charge sheet against some of the accused persons, a threat is hovering upon the petitioner of being arrested. The petitioner has wrongly been shown to be a "fugitive" without committing any crime, so the proceedings of case No. 37/10 pending before the court of Additional District & Sessions No. 2, Bayana, Bharatpur be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that nothing wrong has been conducted by investigating agency because Shankuntla @ Payal was minor at the time of the incidence, so the petition deserved to be dismissed.

3. Heard rival contentions and perused the record.

4. Appraisal of the record goes to show that date of birth of Shakuntla @ Payal is 01.01.1991 and school certificate to this effect has been issued by Principal of Government Senior Upadhyaya Sanskrit Vidhyalaya, Bharatpur with a copy of scholar register, reflecting that date of birth of Shakuntla d/o Bhogiram and Smt. Premwati r/o Saidpura is 01.01.1991. Copy of statements of prosecutrix Shakuntla recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 dated 21.11.2009 also convey the same because Shakuntla @ Payal d/o Bhogiram has stated that she had gone on her own, her father has lodged a false FIR, she has also stated that she has been subjected to beatings by family members and has also stated that she is major of 18 years of age.

Prosecutrix Shakuntla @ Payal has been examined by Doctors of Government Rajbahadur Memorial Hospital, Bharatpur on 19.11.2009 and on the basis of ossification test, she has been opined to be of 20-21 years of age on the basis of radiological examination report No. 136/2009.

Relevant it is, to observe that the couple had earlier preferred SB Civil Misc. Petition No. 2224/2011 before this court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, while passing order on 10.01.2014 has observed:-

Petitioners have filed this writ petition for a direction to respondents not to harass, torture and humiliate them as well as parents and relatives of petitioner no.2 in future. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondents no.1 to 4 to provide them protection to protect the matrimonial life of petitioners from parents of petitioner no.1.

Petitioner No.1 Payal @ Shakuntla, who is major, got married to petitioner no.2 Bablu, who is also major, on 23.05.2009 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. It was out of their free will and choice. After their marriage, father of petitioner no.1 lodged an F.I.R. No.123/2009 against petitioner no.2 at Police Station Uchchain, District Bharatpur, on 03.06.2009 Mother of petitioner no.1 also lodged F.I.R. No.31/2010 against petitioner no.2 on 02.03.2010 on same allegation. Petitioner no.1 submitted an affidavit stating that she wants to live with petitioner no.2 and her parents have lodged false report.

On 29.11.2012 this court required petitioner no.1 to appear before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court on 07.1