The Allahabad High Court opined that authentic romantic bonds between individuals, notwithstanding their status as minors or approaching legal adulthood, remain impervious to stringent regulatory measures or governmental oversight.
In its adjudication, the Court acceded to petitions seeking the annulment of criminal proceedings against four petitioners who contracted matrimony without familial sanction.
The Court underscored its elevated judicial responsibility, transcending the mere application and construction of statutory provisions, necessitating a nuanced comprehension of the ramifications of its decisions on both individual litigants and the societal fabric.
This Court has time and again reached to the conclusion that true love between the individuals, one or both of who may be a minor or at the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action”, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed.
Advocate Ashok Kumar Yadava and Advocate Aditya Singh appeared as counsel for the Applicant, while the Government Advocate represented the Respondent.
Four applications invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), were individually filed by disparate applicants, all seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings against them. These applications were collectively adjudicated due to a shared legal issue. The principal application sought the quashing of a charge sheet, summoning order, and entire criminal proceedings concerning allegations under sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). In the initial application, notwithstanding the prosecutrix marrying the applicant and providing favorable statements, a charge sheet was initiated. The Court took cognizance of a prior dismissal of an application under Section 482 by the applicant but entertained the contention that significant changes warranted reconsideration. In the subsequent application, the applicants sought the quashing of a kidnapping case, asserting consensual relationships and marriage, along with another case involving allegations of enticing a minor, now the applicant’s spouse and mother of their child, without evidence of coercion.
Throughout various instances, the Court noted that both male and female individuals were engaged in consensual relationships prior to elopement. Despite facing familial opposition, they opted for matrimonial union, solemnizing it either through a temple or Arya Samaj Temple, and formalizing their marriage. Despite attaining legal majority and exercising their marital prerogatives, they encountered harassment and criminal charges. However, given their statements under Section 164 of the CrPC, the entire prosecutorial narrative appeared unsubstantiated. Persisting with criminal allegations against the males would only exacerbate the couples’ distress and thus should be expeditiously dismissed.
The Bench observed a common thread among all aforementioned cases, wherein the couples had reached the age of majority and entered into matrimony, yet parental interference hindered their conjugal harmony. Instead of facilitating, parents sowed discord in their relationships, manifesting a conflict between legal mandates and the couples’ aspiration for familial tranquility with their offspring.
Drawing from legal precedent, specifically the case of Mafat Lal and Another v State of Rajasthan [Crl. Appeal No.592 of 2022], the Court reiterated that when parties consent to and maintain content marital lives with their minor offspring, no legal impediments should preclude recognition of their wedlock. Furthermore, citing the case of Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M., [(2018) 16 SCC 368], the Court underscored the right of individuals over 18 years to exercise autonomy in choosing their abode and cohabitant.
The Court noted that the females who opted for marriage were either expectant or already had offspring. The Bench emphasized the imperative of a compassionate and pragmatic approach, recognizing the substantial duration of matrimony and the parental status of the couples. Subjecting them to criminal litigation at this juncture would be inequitable to the accused and their blameless progeny, devoid of any complicity in the alleged transgressions.
“The Court is conscious of its role that the judicial system is tasked not only with interpreting and upholding the law but also with understanding of the dynamics of society. The role of the Court is much more onerous and beyond mere application and interpretation of the statutes. It involves an understanding of the implications of its decisions on individuals and the community at large. Striking this balance requires a thorough examination of the facts, legal precedents and involving ethos of the society it serves. The Court must weigh competing interests, considering the impact of its decisions on the parties involved and the broader implications for justice, fairness and social order”, the Bench added.
The Bench observed a conundrum in rationalizing State or Police intervention vis-à-vis adolescent couples who contract matrimony and lead tranquil existences, striking a balance between legal adherence and empathetic considerations for the individuals. The Court underscored that genuine affection between minors or individuals approaching majority resists facile regulation through legal mechanisms. Cases of this nature necessitate judicious deliberation by the presiding Judge to reconcile the application of legal principles with their broader societal implications, while also safeguarding the welfare of the involved parties and the community at large.
The Bench observed, “when the scale of justice has to be weighed, they are not on the basis of mathematical precision or the mathematical formulas or theorems, but at times, while on one side of the scale there is the law and other side of scale may carry the entire life, happiness and the future of toddlers, their parents and the parents of their parents. The scale that reflects and portrays such pure happiness sans any criminality would definitely equal the scale carrying the law as the application of law is meant for maintaining the rule of law and an orderly society”.
Following exhaustive deliberation of both factual and legal considerations, the Court concluded that allowing the trials to proceed would inflict undue distress upon the implicated couples, potentially disrupting their marital union. In adherence to the imperative of maintaining a humane legal system and preserving societal equilibrium, the Court judiciously exercised its discretion pursuant to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the Court granted the Applications and ordered the quashing of the charge sheets, summoning orders, and associated criminal proceedings.