Arti & ANR v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi) & ORS

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARTI & ANR ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.M.T.Malik, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Rahul Mehra, St.Counsel for the State/R-1 to R-3.

Respondents No.4 to 6 in person with counsel (appearance not given).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 17.05.2016 1.

The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to seek protection as they married against the wishes of their respective families. 2.

In the writ petition, it is mentioned that petitioner No.1 was compelled to leave her house as her parents were not willing to get her married to petitioner no.2. After leaving her house, petitioner No.1 got married to petitioner no.2 at Arya Samaj Mandir according to Hindu rites and customs. 3.

The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that they may be provided protection as they apprehend threat to their lives from respondents No.4 to 7.

4.

Today respondents no.4 to 6 i.e. parents of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 respectively are present in person. They have interacted

with the petitioners in presence of their respective counsel. 5.

Parents of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 have given in writing that they have no objection to the marriage of Petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 and they need not apprehend any threat from them. They submit that both the petitioners are at liberty to live wherever they want without any interference from family members of petitioner No.1. 6.

Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for the State/R-1 has submitted that case FIR No.192/2016 under Section 365 IPC has also been registered against petitioner No.2 at PS Fatehpur Beri on the basis of complaint made by father of petitioner No.1. He has further submitted that petitioner No.1 is also required for getting her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Magistrate and petitioner No.2 is also required for investigation. Thus, the petitioners may be directed to join the investigation. Learned Standing Counsel for State/R-1 assures that in view of the submissions made by parents of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.2 will not be arrested in the said FIR. 7.

Both the petitioners submit that they are ready to join and fully cooperate with the investigating agency in connection with case FIR No.192/2016 under Section 365 IPC PS Fatehpur Beri. 8.

Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that in view of the submissions made by parents of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, though at present there is no element of threat to petitioners, still State is ready to provide protection to the petitioners through Beat Staff in future, if there is any element of threat to them from the respondents Nos. 4 to 7.

9.

In view of the aforesaid assurance given by the State, learned counsel

for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the present writ petition. 10.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

MAY 17, 2016 'st'