Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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