Raju Yadav & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 363, 366
- Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 ss. 5, 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 164
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab.
To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Quashing of FIR No. 94 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and under Section 5, 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, registered at P.S. Division 8 Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arisen thereafter. Petitioner No.1, Raju Yadav was solemnized with Sanju Yadav on 13.02.2011 in Maharishi Valmiki Mandir, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh as per Hindu rites and rituals. This Court vide order dated
15.02.2011 in Criminal Misc. No. M- 4887 of 2011 (P-4), the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the SSP, for seeking protection in accordance with law. Father of the complainant registered an FIR No. Crl. Misc. No. M-26300 of 2011 -2- 94 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and under Section 5, 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, registered at P.S. Division 8 Jalandhar. The petitioner has referred to a certificate issued by Patel Senior Secondary School where the date of birth of the complainant is
Operative part
01.01.1993 and she has stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the marriage of the petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 13.02.2011 and is residing without any fear, pressure or coercion at matrimonial home Parsu Ram Nagar, Rehru Jalandhar. This statement made on 29.06.2011. On notice, a reply has been filed stated that the date of birth of the complainant is 05.05.1994 and she was minor at the of marriage. Counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant is staying with her husband and she has completed 18 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she is 8 months' pregnant. In view of the factual position, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has chosen not to contest the matter Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 429, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. Crl. Misc. No. M-26300 of 2011 -3- State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the litigation. Accordingly, FIR No. 94 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and under Section 5, 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, registered at P.S. Division 8 Jalandhar is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioners. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. July 13, 2012 Atul JUDGE (RITU BAHRI)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 363, 366; Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 — ss. 5, 6; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Jul 2012. The bench was RITU BAHRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.