The Punjab and Haryana High Court cited Shakespeare on the sanctity of love while advocating for the dismissal of FIRs against runaway couples. The case involved a man accused in 2009 of luring a girl for marriage, arrested after seven years, and later granted bail. The court emphasized the importance of protecting young couples in consensual relationships from legal harassment.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently emphasized the need for courts to be flexible when considering petitions to quash kidnapping cases involving eloping couples.
Justice Sumeet Goel stated that the victim’s minor status at the time of the alleged crime should not be the sole reason to dismiss a quashing plea.
The High Court, he noted, has the jurisdiction to review the overall circumstances, including the victim reaching adulthood and continuing to live in the marriage.
Read Also: Punjab and Haryana High Court Takes Firm Action Against Judicial Misconduct
The judge remarked,
“If the challenged FIR involves allegations under Sections 363-A/366 of the IPC and it is evident that the accused and the victim have married and are living contentedly, the High Court should consider such pleas for quashing the FIR with significant latitude. This is particularly compelling if a child has been born from the marriage,”
In support of this, the Court quoted William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream,
“Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is wing’d Cupid painted blind.”
The High Court emphasized that it would not serve the interest of justice to refuse to exercise its authority to dismiss such proceedings.
However, it highlighted that the appropriate course of action would be determined by the complete set of facts and circumstances of each case.
The case involved a petition from a man accused in 2009 of allegedly luring away a girl for marriage. He arrested seven years later and then released on bail.
The petitioner asked the High Court to dismiss the First Information Report (FIR), arguing that he and the alleged victim had been in love and living as husband and wife since 2010.
It also brought to the Court’s attention that the couple has three children.
Justice Goel examined whether the FIR, filed at the behest of the victim’s father or guardian, should be dismissed if it is established that the accused and the victim have married.
The Court observed,
“Often, this Court encounters numerous petitions where the father or guardian has lodged an FIR claiming that his daughter has been lured away by the accused,”
The Court further noted that the accused and the alleged victim had been in a relationship and had eloped to marry because their families did not approve of their union.
The Court noted,
“For parents to link their affection for a daughter solely through wounded pride, emotional pain from separation, or a dominating will is neither selfless nor genuinely affectionate both essential to family unity,”
It stressed that parents must accept that their children will make personal choices, and some significant life events are irreversible.
The Court also remarked that for a couple happily married for a long time with children, it can be embarrassing, unsettling, and disconcerting to face relentless scrutiny about their marriage.
In this context, the Court cited a line from Shakespeare’s play Henry VI, stating,
“A marriage is of more value than to be handled by proxy.”
The Court stated that a father’s bitterness cannot be allowed to persist “endlessly to the point of absurdity,” and it would be completely unreasonable to continue questioning and scrutinizing the accused, who is the husband of the alleged victim.
Considering the facts of the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to use its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
Advocates GBS Gill and Shilesh Gupta represented the accused.
Advocate Adhiraj Singh Thind represented the State of Punjab.
Advocate Tejinder Pal Singh represented another respondent.