Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against an order of the High Court that recalled a previous order granting police protection to the Appellant and his wife, Respondent No. 1, who had married without parental consent. The couple sought police protection due to threats from Respondent No. 1's family, which was initially granted by the High Court. However, the protection order was later recalled based on an application from Respondent No. 1's father, leading to the direction for the registration of an FIR against the Appellant under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, alleging that he misrepresented his age at the time of marriage. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had no authority to recall its order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as there was no provision for such a recall in criminal matters. The Court also determined that the Appellant was below eighteen years of age at the time of marriage, thus Section 9 could not be applied to him. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act was to protect minor girls and that punishing a male who marries an adult female does not align with the Act's objectives. The Court ultimately quashed the FIR and set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal and stating that police protection was no longer necessary as the couple was living happily without threats from their families.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Recall of Order - High Court's Inherent Powers - High Court could not recall its earlier order under Section 482, Cr.P.C. - There is no provision for recalling or reviewing an order passed by it in criminal matters. The order set aside was only a protection order, and there was no exceptional circumstance calling for an exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers. Held that the recall was unjustified (Paras 2-3). B) Child Marriage - Applicability of Section 9 - High Court erred in directing prosecution under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Appellant was below eighteen years at the time of marriage, thus Section 9 could not be applied. The interpretation of the Act indicated that the provision aimed to protect minor girls, and punishing a male child marrying an adult female was not the mischief the provision sought to remedy. Held that Section 9 does not apply (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in recalling its earlier order granting police protection and directing the registration of an FIR under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal and stating that police protection was no longer necessary.
Law Points
- Section 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Section 9
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act
- 2006
- interpretation of child marriage
- inherent powers of High Court
- police protection
