Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tej Pratap Singh Mann, J.—The petitioner has sought initiation of proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against respondents No. 2 and 3 for producing fake document/certificate while filing Criminal Misc. No. M-26641 of 2013. Respondents No. 2 and 3, while filing Criminal Misc. No. M-26641 of 2013 claimed that they were of marriageable age as respondent No. 2 was born on 15.11.1993 while respondent No. 3 was born on 23.12.1991. In order to establish their dates of births, respondents No. 2 and 3 placed on record copy of the school certificate and voter-card respectively. Apprehending danger to their life and liberty for marrying against the wishes of her parents, respondent No. 2 alongwith respondent No. 3, filed the aforementioned petition in order to seek protection to their life and liberty. The said petition came up for preliminary hearing on 14.8.2013. At that very stage, the present petitioner, alongwith his brother Kuldeep Singh, who stood arrayed as respondents therein, put in appearance through their counsel and expressed a wish to meet respondent No. 2 in the retiring room of the Court. The meeting lasted for more than 10 minutes. Thereafter, the petitioner stated that he had accepted the factum of marriage of respondent No. 2 with respondent No. 3 and, therefore, he and his family members would not interfere in their matrimonial life. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner in the aforementioned petition, the same was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 were granted liberty to approach Station House Officer, Makhu, District Ferozepur for appropriate relief in case they ever felt threatened at the hands of the petitioner and his brother Kuldeep Singh.

In the present petition it has been alleged that respondent No. 2 was minor on the date when she claimed to have got married to respondent No. 3. In this regard, the petitioner has appended copy of the matriculation certificate issued in the name of respondent No. 2 where her date of birth stands mentioned as 15.12.1996.

There is no denial of the fact that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as 15.11.1993 in the certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board in respect of the middle standard examination held in March, 2010 and, therefore, on 12.8.2013, she was more than 191/2 years of age. On the other hand, the petitioner has relied upon another certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board in respect of the matriculation examination held in the year 2012, where the date of birth of respondent No. 2 stands mentioned as 15.12.1996 and, in case, the said certificate is accepted, respondent No. 2 was admittedly less than 18 years of age on the date she got married to respondent No. 3.

Be that as it may, this Court is not going into the fact as to whether respondent No. 2 was born on 15.12.1996, as claimed by the petitioner, or 15.11.1993 as claimed by respondent No. 2 when she had filed Criminal Misc. No. M-26641 of 2013, for the reason that the petitioner had earlier made statement before this Court on 14.8.2013 at the time of final disposal of Criminal Misc. No. M-26641 of 2013 that he accepted the marriage of respondents No. 2 and 3 and he and his family members would not interfere in their matrimonial life. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.