Mayank Bansal & ANR. v. State Of NCT & ORS.

$~9.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2405/2018 MAYANK BANSAL & ANR.

..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Advocate with Mr. Mujeeb Fazili and Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT & ORS.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocates for State with Inspector Dinesh Kumar and ASI Harender, PS-Farsh Bazar.

Ms. Smita Maan, Advocate for R-4 and R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 15.10.2018 The petitioner‟s brother - Shubham Bansal and Sonam Ranarespondent No.7, the daughter of respondent No.4 have been located and produced before the Court. We have interacted with Sonam in Chamber. She states that she has got married to respondent No.6 - Shubham Bansal, out of her own free will and accord. She further stated that the couple absconded - apprehending harm from respondent No.4 and his family

members since their marriage is inter-caste and was not agreeable to her family.

Respondent No.4 is present in Court and we have interacted with him in Chamber. We have also counselled him that considering the fact that Shubham Bansal and his daughter are major and they have got married out of their own free will and accord, even if he does not approve of the same, he is legally bound to accept the same. We have also counselled and cautioned him not to take law into his own hands or issue any threats or coercion to the couple or the family members of Shubham Bansal, including the petitioners.

We have also called Sonam to the Chamber in the presence of respondent No.4 and she has apologised to him for having caused distress and trauma to him and the other family members. While we hope and trust that respondent No.4 will put the matter to rest, we have also cautioned and warned him not to take the law into his own hands as doing so would only enhance his misery and the misery of his family.

Shubham Bansal and Sonam state that they have returned to their home and are living with the petitioners. We direct the SHO, PS Farsh Bazar to ensure that the petitioners, Shubham Bansal, Sonam and the family members are provided protection by keeping surveillance in the area and on the activities and movement of respondent No.4 and his family members. In case, any distress call is received at the police station by any of the family members of the petitioners, the same should be attended to without any delay.

Counsel for the petitioners point out that on the complaint of

respondent No.4, FIR No. 2201/2018 under Section 363 IPC was registered at PS Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. Learned counsel submits that a quashing petition has been preferred before the Allahabad High Court. Orders have been reserved in the said proceedings. He submits that in case, Shubham Bansal and Sonam and the petitioners have to travel, for the purpose of getting the FIR quashed, they may be provided protection. We direct Delhi Police to take all requisite steps in this regard. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIPIN SANGHI, J I.S.MEHTA, J OCTOBER 15, 2018 N.Khanna