- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed jointly be Afsana and Fajaru stating that both being major have solemnized Nikah on 5th September, 2012. It is submitted that sister of petitioner no. 1 Afsana was married to Fajaru but she died leaving behind five children and that the petitioner no.1 Afsana out of love and affection of sister's children has married Fajaru.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 Afsana is a major being 20 years of age; that she had the right to marry a person of her own choice and the exercise of said right cannot occasion harassment by the police at the instance of the petitioner no.1's parents. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner no.1 Afsana was being forced by her father Jacum to marry a person not to her liking which proposal she had already rejected. Invoking the oft repeated right to protection of "life and liberty ", irrespective of th factual context and matrix, it has been submitted that by lodging a false FIR bearing no. 199/2012 registered at police station Jurhara, District Bharatpur lodged by Jacum, the father of the petitioner no. 1 Afsana, on 1st September, 2012, an attempt is being made to break the marriage duly solemnized between petitioner no.1 Afsana and petitioner no.2 Fajaru. It has thus, been prayed that directions be issued by this Court to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur as also to Station House Officer, Jurhara, Bharatpur not to harass or otherwise interfere in the married life of the petitioners on the basis of the said false FIR lodged against them. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ petition. Intervention of this Court in matters as the present one has been occasioned only wherein couples have solemnized inter-caste marriages and the ire of entire communities has had the potential of physical violence against the newly wedded couples. This was the situation which prevailed in the case of Lata Singh versus State of U.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2522. The facts of the present case are wholly different. The petitioners belong to the same community and the reasons which have prevailed the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court in passing the order of protection of newly married couples of adequate age are missing in the present case. In the instant case, the criminal process has been set in motion against the petitioner no.2 at the instance of the father Jacum of the petitioner no.1 Afsana by way of FIR No. 199/2012 registered at police station Jurhara, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC in view of the fact that his very young daughter has gone missing in the company of a much older brother-in-law with five children from his earlier wife � albeit the older sister of the petitioner no.1. In my considered opinion, the present case is not fit case for the intervention of this Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved of any action being taken against them, such as in FIR No. 199/2012 aforesaid they are free to have remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On their part, they can on being threatened with loss of life lodge an appropriate FIR or otherwise resort to Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This Court cannot on the mere say of the petitioners interfere with the investigation of FIR No. 199/2012 lodged against the petitioner no.2 particularly under Section 363 and 366 of IPC. However, the police is expected to investigate the FIR No. 199/2012 fairly and honestly without being influenced from any quarter. Consequently , the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. All Corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.;