Shivani Thakur
Published on: April 29, 2022 at 16:58 IST
The Rajasthan High Court observed that Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 makes it abundantly clear that organising marriage is Offence under the Act. However, mere engagement of a child in any Case does not amount to an offence under Section 11.
Justice Dinesh Mehta observed:
“A perusal of Section 11 of the Act of 2006, makes it abundantly clear that organising marriage is a Sine Qua Non to constitute an Offence under the Act of 2006. Engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an Offence under Section 11 of the Act of 2006. Admittedly, on the fateful day of 25.02.2020, Petitioner’s son was getting engaged which cannot be confused with or construed to be a marriage, falling foul to the provisions of the Act of 2006”.
In this Case, on 25.02.2020, a function for the engagement of the Petitioner’s son was going on, when the Investigating Officer approached the place. As per First Information Report lodged by District Legal Service Authority for the purported offence under Sections 11 and 15 of the Act.
The Petitioner has challenged the proceedings pending before the Trial Court pursuant to the said First Information Report registered said that the Petitioner had simply organised an engagement ceremony for his son and no marriage had taken place.
The Court noted that the complainant and the Investigating Officer knowing it fully well that the function was for engagement have registered First Information Report treating the act of arranging engagement ceremony to be an act ‘promoting child marriage’, completely ignoring the fact that ‘contracting child marriage’ is a foundational prerequisite.
The Court further observed that,
“It is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code not only because the proceedings are fundamentally void but also in order to eschew abuse of the process of Court and to save the petitioner from unnecessary harassment and drastic consequences. The present Misc. petition is thus, allowed. The proceedings of CRO No.293/2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Osian, Jodhpur pursuant to FIR No.0116 dated 27.05.2020, are hereby quashed”.
The Court directed that a copy of this Order should be sent to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Jodhpur.
The Public Prosecutor was not in the position to establish from the record that the Petitioner’s son had contracted marriage on 25.02.2020. He, however, argued that organising engagement ceremony amounts to promoting child marriage and thus, Petitioner is being rightly tried for the Offenses under the Act of 2006.