LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI& ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATKA & ORS.

518                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 518
                              REPORTS                        [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A                   LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR.
                                         v.
                     THE STATE OF KARNATKA & ORS.
                      (Writ Petition [Criminal] No. 359/2020)
B                             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,
C
      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
D     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.
E
            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
F     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
G     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

H
                                        518
   LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR. v. THE STATE OF                        519
                KARNATKA & ORS.

parents of petitioner No.2 were willing for the matrimony of both      A
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
                                                                       B
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       C
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
                                                                       D
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]          E
[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               F
      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       G
[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
                                                                       H
520            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           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,
B     Vishal Banshal, Ankit Goel, Sachin Sharma, Advs. for the appearing
      parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
C           Rule.
            1. We have heard learned counsel for parties.
              2. One Mr. Basappa Chandaragi lodged a complaint with the
      Murgod Police Station, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District stating that his
      daughter Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi, petitioner No.1 herein was missing
D
      since 14.10.2020. In pursuance to the complaint, FIR No.226/2020 of a
      missing person was registered and the investigation officer recorded the
      statement of the missing person’s parents and her relatives and took call
      details. From the call details, it became apparent that the petitioner No.1
      was in contact with Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav, petitioner No.2. In the
E     course of investigation it was found that the petitioner No.1, apparently
      without informing her parents, had travelled by flight from Hubli to
      Bangalore and further from Bangalore to Delhi and thereafter married
      petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 sent her marriage certificate to her
      parents through whatsapp on 15.10.2020 in which she revealed the
      factum of marriage to petitioner No.2. It is the case of the State that the
F
      IO proceeded to Ghaziabad to know the whereabouts of petitioner No.1
      and on visiting the residence of petitioner No.2, was informed by his
      parents that they do not know the whereabouts of the petitioners.
      However, the petitioner No.1 spoke to the investigating officer and
      informed that she had already married petitioner No.2 and was residing
G     with him. But the IO instead insisted that the petitioner No.1 should
      appear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so that
      the case can be closed. The petitioner No.1 sent a letter to the IO stating
      that she was married to petitioner No.2 and there was threat from her
      parents and thus, was unable to visit the police station. The case was
      still not closed of missing person by the IO.
H
    LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR. v. THE STATE OF                               521
      KARNATKA & ORS. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

       3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the present petition      A
has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since according
to the petitioner there is an issue of duality of jurisdiction arising from
her residing with petitioner No.2 in the State of Uttar Pradesh while the
petitioner No.1 came from Karnataka. It is the case of the petitioners
that the uncle of petitioner No.1 was threatening them. On the petitioners
                                                                               B
approaching the Allahabad High Court on 19.10.2020, seeking protection
for themselves and the family members, the matter could not be taken
upon even after about a period of one month for urgent hearing.
       4. The petitioners have annexed a transcript of the conversation
between petitioner No.1 and the police whereby the IO is asking her to
come back to Karnataka as otherwise they will come to her and register         C
a case of kidnapping against petitioner No.2 at the behest of her family
members.
       5. We have gone through the translation of the transcript at page
D to page H originally in Kannada, now translated in English in which
the petitioner No.1 expressed the feeling of lack of safety. Though the        D
IO stated that they would like to close the case, they wanted her to get
her statement recorded at the police station. The IO also stated that the
family members may file a case against her that she has stolen things
from the home and if an FIR is filed, there would be a negative mark
against petitioner No.2 and they would have to arrest him which would          E
be problematic for his job also.
       6. The aforesaid does not tally with what is stated in the counter
affidavit to the extent that the investigation officer had at no point
threatened the petitioners.
       7. The aforesaid does not reflect very well on the police authorities   F
or the IO, the marriage certificate having been received by him and the
conversation already been held with petitioner No.1 where she clearly
stated that she was married to petitioner No.2 and that she was feeling
threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station. If the IO
could have visited the residence of petitioner No.2, he could very well        G
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
                                                                               H
522              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


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. We strongly deprecate the conduct of the IO in adopting
      these tactics and the officer must be sent for counseling as to how to
      manage such cases.
B             8. Both the parties are well educated. The petitioner No.2 is an
      M.Tech from NIT, Tiruchirapalli, while petitioner No.1-wife, is an
      M.A.B.Ed. The petitioner No.2 had got a placement as an Assistant
      Professor in Jain College of Engineering, Belagavi, Karnataka while the
      petitioner No.1 was a Lecturer in KLES (Karnataka Lingayat Education
C     Society) Pre-University College, Bailhongal and it appears that they
      developed liking for each other during these assignments. However, there
      was resistance from the parents of petitioner No.1, though the parents
      of petitioner No.2 were willing for the matrimony of both the well qualified
      petitioners who are majors and Hindu by religion.

D            9. 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.
E
             10. We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements
      of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the
      community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals
      agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously
      given primacy.1 It is in that context it was further observed that the
F     choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot
      be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is
      not is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or
      “group thinking.”2
             11. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors.3, this Court noticed
G
      that the society was emerging through a crucial transformational period.4

      1
        Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192
      2
        Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397
      3
        (2018) 16 SCC 408
      4
H       Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475
       LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR. v. THE STATE OF                              523
         KARNATKA & ORS. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable    A
and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right
to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine Judges
Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India5 may also be
referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to
                                                                                 B
family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual.
       12. 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           C
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.
       13. 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. We expect the police authorities        D
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.
       14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the petitioners having
filed the present petition, no further statement is really required to be        E
recorded and thus, the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR No.226/
2020 dated 15.10.2020 registered at Murgod Police Station, Belagavi
District, Karnataka are quashed with the hope that the parents of
petitioner No.1 will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-
establish social interaction not only with petitioner No.1 but even with
petitioner No.2. That, in our view, is the only way forward. Under the           F
garb of caste and community to alienate the child and the son-in-law will
hardly be a desirable social exercise. In the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
“Annihilation of Caste:
         “I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of
                                                                                 G
         blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless
         this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the
         separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by Caste
         will not vanish. Where society is already well-knit by other ties,
5
    (2017) 10 SCC 1
                                                                                 H
524            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society is cut
            asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent
            necessity. The real remedy for breaking caste is inter-marriage.
            Nothing else will serve as the solvent of caste.”
             15. The writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with some hope
B     for the future!

      Divya Pandey                                           Petition disposed of.




C




D




E




F




G




H