Justice Sharma made the observations while quashing a kidnapping and rape case registered against one Arif Khan who eloped with a minor girl and got married as per Muslim rites and ceremonies as they belonged to the same religion.

The FIR was registered by girl’s father. When she was recovered, she was five months pregnant. She refused to abort the child stating that it was born out of her marital union and love for her husband.

The man was apprehended in June 2015 and remained in jail till April 2018 when he was granted bail. Since then, the couple had been living together and another daughter was also born from their wedlock.

While quashing the FIR registered in January 2015, Justice Sharma observed that love story of the couple was “unfortunately interrupted” by the entry of investigating agency which was to work as per existing law.

The girl told court that she had voluntarily entered into a consensual relationship with Khan and that she was 18 years of age at the time of incident. However, the same was disputed by the Delhi Police, since as per school records her age was shown less than 18 years.

The court noted that the girl was pregnant when Khan was arrested and had made a choice to continue pregnancy and give birth to the child.

“This Court while deciding the present petition, takes note of the fact that the parties herein had made a choice with themselves, even though law did not permit them to enter into a marital union. However, she supported the case of the petitioner Mr. Khan, at every stage, and not the case of the State. The parties have now been married for about nine years, and have been blessed with two daughters, and they are happily raising their children,” the court said.

Justice Sharma observed that the Court’s role extends beyond a mere application and interpretation of statutes and involves an understanding of the implications of its decisions on individuals and the community at large.

“Striking this balance requires a thorough examination of the facts, legal precedents, and the evolving ethos of the society it serves. The Courts must weigh competing interests, considering the impact of its decisions on the parties involved and the broader implications for justice, fairness, and social order,” the court said.

“This Court taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that in case, the FIR in question, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, is not quashed will result in affecting the future of the daughters born from this union which will result in failure of effective and real justice,” the court added.