SHILENDRA VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining respondents No. 3 to 6 from arresting the petitioners and subjecting them to humiliation and further creating an impediment in their free movement and peaceful enjoyment of life. A further prayer has also been made for issue of direction to provide safety and security.

(2.) THE factual matrix has its own peculiarity. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 developed genuine feelings for each other. When their platonic love ripened into sanguine consummate desire, they endeavoured to remain in an Utopian state and accordingly tied the matrimonial knot. They got married according to the rites of 'Arya Samaj' at Baijnathpara, Raipur. It is put forth that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are major and they complied with the provisions under the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937 and in expression of their free will lived as 'Husband' and 'Wife'. They condemned the idea that man is condemned to be free and inherently believed in the idea and love was born out of divine bliss : - 'Anandata Sanjatah'. Having got the legal stamp embedded and inprinted on their relationship, they thought of visiting certain places of pilgrimage to pay their homage as a sign of gratitude to the almighty and to certain relatives to pay their respect but their aspiration was curbed and curtailed by the seventh respondent, the father of the girl, who put a spoke in the wheel by reporting the matter at the Police Station and the Town Inspector, Bilaspur and Officer -in -charge of Police Station Tarbahar and Maludla, Police Station Bilaspur combined together in a 'Chakravyuha' and assisted the respondent No. 7 and espoused his cause which resulted in frequent calling of the petitioners to Police Station along with other relations. Immense pressure was put to untie the connubial relationship as if it is a Gordian Knot. Expression of parental dissatisfaction thus culminated in setting up the criminal law into motion as allegations were made that their daughter had been abducted by Shailendra Vishwakarma, petitioner No. 1 herein. After the complaint was lodged, the investigating agency commenced investigation and called the petitioner No. 3 and 4, the father and brother of the petitioner No. 1 respectively, and behaved in such a manner which compelled the visits of those petitioners quite frequently at the Police Station. This action of the investigating agency created a dent in the social relationship of the petitioners and before it could give rise to unmanageable crack and burst out like a fatal aneurysm, the petitioners chose to visit this Court as a counteractant.

(3.) IT has been said 'all is well that ends well' but it should not be forgotten things must end well, and well, well in time. As the timely cure is much better than a prolonged unnecessary treatment, it is to be borne in mind any type of treatment is a harassment. The Investigating Officer in the present case should have put an end to the controversy in quite promptitude so that young couple along with their family members should not have been compelled to visit this Court and the Investigating Officer must remember that dispensation of justice has to be done at the earliest so that no citizen shall harbour a grievance. It would not have taken much time on his part that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are major and they were married according to the acceptable religious rites. In future the Investigating Officer in the matter of this kind should act promptly in accordance with law of the land and should not be governed by any kind of pressure or passion. One's notion of relationship and One's proclivity towards parental obligation should not override the mandate of law. A major is free in free India as per our Constitution or the law made in accordance with the Constitution and it should be adhered to by all. I am sure that this will act as a future guidance to the Investigating Officer so that a major married couple do not rush to Court making allegations of harassment by the police because of the admantine attitude of parents. In this context I may profitably quote a paragraph from "Lawbreakers, Courts, and Law -Abiders" by Roger Traynor J.: -