Ratio - Case

Read the following judgment and answer the questions that follow:

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (crl.) 208 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Lata Singh

RESPONDENT:

State of U.P. & Another

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/07/2006

BENCH:

Ashok Bhan & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has

been filed with a prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari and /or mandamus

for quashing the Sessions Trial No. 1201 of 2001 under sections 366 and

368 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 336 of 2000 registered

at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and pending in the Fast Track

Court V, Lucknow.

The facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner is a young woman now aged about 27 years who is a

graduate and at the relevant time was pursuing her Masters course in Hindi

in the Lucknow University. Due to the sudden death of her parents she

started living with her brother Ajay Pratap Singh at LDA Colony, Kanpur

Road, Lucknow, where she did her intermediate in 1997 and graduation in

2000.

It is alleged by the petitioner that on 2.11.2000 she left her brother's

house of her own free will and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi to

one Bramha Nand Gupta who has business in Delhi and other places and

they have a child out of this wedlock.

Thereafter on 4.11.2000, the petitioner's brother lodged a missing

person report at Sarojini Nagar Police Station, Lucknow and consequently

the police arrested two sisters of the petitioner's husband along with the

husband of one of the sisters and the cousin of the petitioner's husband. The

persons arrested were Mamta Gupta, Sangita Gupta (sisters of Brahma Nand

Gupta), as well as Rakesh Gupta (husband of Mamta Gupta) and Kallu

Gupta cousin of the petitioner's husband. Mamta was in jail with her one

month old child.

It is further alleged that the petitioner's brothers Ajay Pratap Singh,

Shashi Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh were furious because the

petitioner underwent an inter-caste marriage, and hence they went to the

petitioner's husband's paternal residence and vehemently beat up her

husband's mother and uncle, threw the luggage, furniture, utensils, etc. from

the house and locked it with their lock. One brother of the petitioner's

husband was allegedly locked in a room by the petitioner's brothers for four

or five days without meals and water. The petitioner's brothers also

allegedly cut away the harvest crops of the agricultural field of the

petitioner's husband and sold it, and they also took forcible possession of the

field. They also lodged a false police report alleging kidnapping of the

petitioner against her husband and his relatives at Police Station Sarojini

Nagar, Lucknow, due to which the sisters of the petitioner's husband, and

the husband of one of the sisters, were arrested and detained in Lucknow

jail. The petitioner's brothers also illegally took possession of the shop of

the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband has a shop at Badan

Singh Market, Rangpuri in the name of Gupta Helmet Shop whose

possession was forcibly taken over by her brothers.

It is further alleged that the petitioner's brothers are threatening to kill

the petitioner's husband and his relatives, and kidnap and kill her also. The

Gupta family members are afraid of going to Lucknow out of fear of

violence by the petitioner's brothers, who are of a criminal bent.

It is alleged that the petitioner's husband and relatives have been

falsely framed by her brothers Shashi Pratap Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh and

Anand Pratap Singh who were furious because of the inter-caste marriage of

the petitioner with Bramha Nand Gupta. Mamta Gupta, Rakesh Gupta and

Sangita Gupta were arrested on 17.12.2000, whereas Kallu Gupta was

arrested on 02.12.2000. It is alleged that the three relatives of the

petitioner's husband were not granted bail for a long time and their lives got

ruined though there was no case against them that they instigated the

petitioner to get married to Bramha Nand Gupta. It is also alleged that the

petitioner ran from pillar to post to save her husband and relatives from

harassment and she then approached the Rajasthan Women Commission,

Jaipur, as she was staying in Jaipur almost in hiding apprehending danger to

her and her husband's life. The Commission recorded her statement on

13.3.2001 and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police

(City), Lucknow for necessary action. The President of the Rajasthan State

Women Commission also wrote a letter to the National Human Rights

Commission on 13.3.2001 requesting the Commission and the Chief

Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to intervene in the matter.

A final report was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Sarojini

Nagar, Lucknow before the learned Judicial Magistrate inter-alia

mentioning that no offence was committed by any of the accused persons

and consequently the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow enlarged the accused

on bail on furnishing a personal bond on 16.5.2001 by observing that neither

was there any offence nor were the accused involved in any offence. The

Superintendent of Police, Lucknow informed the National Human Rights

Commission that all the accused persons have been released on bail on

17.5.2001.

Thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the

petitioner Lata Gupta @ Lata Singh on 28.5.2001 and for this purpose armed

security was provided to her. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Lucknow recorded the statement of the petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C.

on 29.5.2001. In that statement the petitioner stated that she married

Bramha Nand Gupta of her own free will. Despite this statement, the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed the committal order on

5.10.2001 ignoring the fact that the Police had already filed a final report in

the matter.

It appears that a protest petition was filed against the final report of

the Police alleging that the petitioner was not mentally fit. However, the

petitioner was medically examined by the Board of Doctors of Psychiatric

Centre, Jaipur, who have stated that the petitioner was not suffering from

any type of mental illness.

The Fast Track Court, Lucknow before whom the case was pending

issued non-bailable warrants against all the four accused, and against the

order of the Fast Track Court, the accused filed a petition under section 482

Cr.P.C. in the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which was registered

as Crl. Misc. No. 520/2003. The High Court directed the accused to appear

before the Sessions Judge who would himself scrutinize whether the accused

committed any offence or not. The matter is still pending.

The petitioner alleged that she cannot visit Lucknow as she

apprehends danger to her life and the lives of her husband and small child.

She has further alleged that her brothers have assaulted, humiliated and

irreparably harmed the entire family members of her husband Bramha Nand

Gupta and their properties, and even the remote relatives were not spared

and were threatened to be killed. Their properties including the house and

agricultural lands and shops were forcibly taken over by the brothers of the

petitioner and the lives of the petitioner and her husband are in constant

danger as her brothers have been threatening them.

We have considered the above facts and have heard learned counsel

for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State Government.

This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that

the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is

free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar

to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law.

Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her

husband or her husband's relatives.

We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the

accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of

the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the

petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married

outside her caste. We are distressed to note that instead of taking action

against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts

(details of which have been set out above) the police has instead proceeded

against the petitioner's husband and his relatives.

Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of

harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry

outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on

the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our

history, and this Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public

concern, such as the present one.

The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed

the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be

united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste

marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying

the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts

of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste

marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on

them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are

wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This

is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or

she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do

not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum

they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the

daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence

and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-

religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police

authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is

a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or

man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to

threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or

commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task

by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and

further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.

We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of such persons who undergo

inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is

nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric

and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons

who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts

of barbarism.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in

Sessions Trial No. 1201/2001 titled State of U.P. vs. Sangita Gupta & Ors.

arising out of FIR No. 336/2000 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar,

Lucknow and pending in the Fast Track Court V, Lucknow are quashed.

The warrants against the accused are also quashed. The police at all the

concerned places should ensure that neither the petitioner nor her husband

nor any relatives of the petitioner's husband are harassed or threatened nor

any acts of violence are committed against them. If anybody is found doing

so, he should be proceeded against sternly in accordance with law, by the

authorities concerned.

We further direct that in view of the allegations in the petition (set out

above) criminal proceedings shall be instituted forthwith by the concerned

authorities against the petitioner's brothers and others involved in

accordance with law. Petition allowed.

(1) What is the ratio decidendi of the case?

(2) Is there any obiter dictum in the case?