Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

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