'Love Looks Not With The Eyes But With The Mind': Punjab & Haryana HC Quotes Shakespeare, Calls For Quashing Kidnapping Cases Against Runaway Married Couples

Quoting Shakespeare's “a marriage is a matter of more worth, than to be dealt in by attorneyship", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that it must consider "with a high degree of latitude" to quash kidnapping cases wherein the accused and the victim had married each other and are "living happily."

The Court also raised concerns over the regular filing of petitions for quashing FIRs wherein the man in the runaway couple is accused of inciting the woman, by the family who is not in favour of marriage.

The court stated that parents must take into account that their children may make choices which are individual to them; and just as life does not tarry with yesterday, certain consequential life events cannot be reversed.

The bench emphasised William Shakespeare's writings in the play “A Midsummer Night's Dream”: “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is wing'd Cupid painted blind..........”, said Justice Sumeet Goel.

The Court summarised the following principles:

(i) Where the impugned FIR pertains to allegation of offences under Sections 363-A/366 of IPC& it emerges that the accused and the victim have married each other and are living happily, the High Court ought to consider, with a high degree of latitude, such plea for quashing such an FIR (as also proceedings arising therefrom). Such plea would be fortified in case child has been born from the wedlock.

(ii) The factum of the victim being minor at the time of the alleged offence shall not ipso facto call for rejection of such a plea on this score itself. Even in such like cases, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to evaluate the entirety of facts including the factum of the victim having attained the age of majority and still staying in the matrimony, the said couple having been blessed with child etc.

(iii) There is no gainsaying that above postulates are not to be universally/sweepingly applied, for every case has its unique facts/circumstances.

Background

These observations were made in response to the petitions by a man who was booked in 2009 under Sections 363-A, 366 IPC upon filing of the complaint by the woman's father for allegedly enticing away his daughter for marriage.

The petitioner pleaded that he got married to the alleged victim in 2010 and out of wedlock three children have been born.

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that "for a couple, who have been wedded happily for long and have children; it can be embarrassing, unsettling and even disconcerting to find being subjected to unabated withering over their matrimony."

"For a parental trifling with conjugal relationship; to the extent of bringing forth to face trial, the accused (husband) alongwith purported victim (daughter of complainant) as also their children, over questioning the raison d'etre of the wedlock, is seemingly a leaf out of Commedia Dell'Arte," the Court said.

Adding that, the sheer distress caused to the young couple and their children on this account is unfathomable, the judge said, "A father's rancor cannot be permitted to remain extant ad infinitum ad nauseam (to infinity, to sickening degree)."

Justice Goel highlighted that "to have the accused (now husband to the victim as also now father to the children born from wedlock), the purported victim (daughter to the complainant, now wife to the accused and now mother to the children born from wedlock) as also children; brought forth to Court, repeatedly, to question and scrutinize the wedlock, of which the said children are born of, would be outrightly farcical & patently ludicrous."

The Court said it would be injustice "especially to the children if the accused and his wife (purported victim) are left to such an inveterate belligerence."

In light of the above, the Court found it fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.

Mr. GBS Gill, Advocate for Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Title: XXXX v. XXX

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 204