SAROJ DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking its inherent jurisdiction, seeking direction against the official respondents, to register FIR against respondent No.5 and also for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby respondent No.4-minor daughter of the petitioner was directed to be kept in the protection home, as she was facing threat to her life and liberty at the hands of the petitioner and her family members.

(2.) During the course of hearing, when confronted with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu State of U.P. and others 2008(2) SCC 409, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he does not intend to press this petition, so far as the first prayer of the petitioner seeking direction for registration of the FIR is concerned.

(3.) However, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide Annexure P-7 was wholly unsustainable in law. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that daughter of the petitioner being minor in age, she was not capable of giving her consent. He submits that since the daughter of the petitioner was not capable of giving her consent, her marriage with respondent No.5 was not valid. However, on specific question having been put by the Court, as to how the marriage was void, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that marriage between respondents No.4 and 5 was not void but voidable.