Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

True Love Cannot Be Controlled Through Rigours of Law - Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Kidnapping and Compelling Marriage Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, has quashed criminal proceedings in four cases related to allegations of kidnapping and compelling marriage under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The court emphasized that “true love between individuals cannot be controlled through rigours of law or State action.”

The judgement revolved around the application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., focusing on quashing criminal proceedings against couples who had chosen to marry against their family's wishes. These proceedings were initially based on allegations of kidnapping and abduction.

In each case, the couples, after attaining majority, had eloped and married against their families' wishes. The families lodged criminal complaints, leading to charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The court was tasked with assessing the validity of these charges in light of the subsequent consensual marital life of the couples.

The Court conducted a thorough analysis of each case and found that the couples had exercised their right to choose their life partners. It noted that these couples were leading a happy marital life, often with children, and that continuing criminal proceedings would only result in undue hardship. The Court drew upon precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, which uphold the rights of individuals over the age of 18 to make life choices, including the choice of a life partner.

Justice Chaturvedi observed, "When the scale of justice is weighed, it's not only about the law but also about the lives, happiness, and future of individuals involved. Application of law must have a humane face."

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants, recognizing the need for a humane approach in law enforcement and acknowledging the well-being of the young couples and their children. It was held that further prosecution would only lead to unwarranted hardship.

 Date of Decision: 13 February 2024

Pradeep Yadav, VS State Of U.P. and Others 

 

Latest Legal News