MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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 

 

Similar News