LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI& ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATKA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 08-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATKA & ORS.
(Writ Petition [Criminal] No. 359/2020)
FEBRUARY 08, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to choose life partner
– Missing complaint of petitioner no.1 lodged by her father – FIR –
On investigation it was found that without informing her parents,
she had travelled from Hubli to Delhi and married petitioner no.2 –
Resided with him in U.P – Sent marriage certificate to parents on
whatsapp – Informed IO – IO insisted on her to visit Murgod police
station, objected by her in view of threat from parents – Petitioners
approached Allahabad High Court for protection, matter not listed
even after a month – Writ petition u/Art.32 – Held: Both the parties
are well educated, majors and Hindu by religion – Educated younger
boys and girls are choosing their life partners in departure from
the earlier norms of society where caste and community played major
role – This is the way forward – Proceedings in pursuance to FIR
registered at Murgod police station, quashed.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD : 1.1 If the IO could have visited the residence of
petitioner No.2, he could very well have recorded the statement
of petitioner No.1 at the place where the petitioners were residing
rather than insisting and calling upon the petitioners to come to
the local police station at Karnataka. Not only that, he undoubtedly
sought to compel the petitioner No.1 to come and record the
statement at police station on the threat of possibility of a false
case being registered by her parents against the petitioner No.2
and the consequent action of the police which would result in the
arrest of petitioner No.2. The conduct of the IO is strongly
deprecated in adopting these tactics. [Para 7][521-G-H; 522-A]
1.2 Both the parties were well educated. However, there
was resistance from the parents of petitioner No.1, though the
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 518
518
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
parents of petitioner No.2 were willing for the matrimony of both
the well qualified petitioners who are majors and Hindu by religion.
Educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partners
which, in turn is a departure from the earlier norms of society
where caste and community play a major role. Possibly, this is
the way forward where caste and community tensions will reduce
by such inter marriage but in the meantime these youngsters
face threats from the elders and the Courts have been coming to
the aid of these youngsters. The intervention of this Court would
really not have been required in the given facts of the case if the
IO had conducted himself more responsibly in closing the
complaint and if he really wanted to record the statement of the
petitioner No.1, should have informed that he would visit her
and recorded the statement instead of putting her under threat
of action against petitioner No.2 to come to the police station.
The way forward to the police authorities is to not only counsel
the current IOs but device a training programme to deal with
such cases for the benefit of the police personnel. The police
authorities are expected to take action in this behalf in the next
eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes
how to handle such socially sensitive cases. The proceedings
in pursuance to the FIR registered at Murgod Police Station,
Belagavi District, Karnataka are quashed. [Paras 8, 9, 12-14]
[522-B, C-D; 523-B-E]
Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 :
[2018] 3 SCR 770; Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017)
4 SCC 397 : [2017] 1 SCR 945; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan
K M & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 408; Lata Singh vs. State
of U.P (2006) 5 SCC 475 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 350;
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 :
[2017] 10 SCR 569 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 3 SCR 770
relied on
para 10
[2017] 1 SCR 945
relied on
para 11
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 350
relied on
para 11
[2017] 10 SCR 569
relied on
para 11
LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR. v. THE STATE OF
KARNATKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :  Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 359
of 2020.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.)
Prabhat Kumar Rai, Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Ms. Smriti Singh,
Christopher B Dsouza, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain,
Vishal Banshal, Ankit Goel, Sachin Sharma, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.