Jyoti And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CRWP-262-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-262-2025 Date of Decision: January 13, 2025 Jyoti and another ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Kachura,Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 to 6. It is further prayed to direct respondents No.2 and 3 not to harass/implicate the petitioners especially petitioner No.2 in any false criminal case at the instance of respondent Nos.4 to 6. Further prayer has been made to direct official respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners, dated 09.01.2025, Annexure P-3.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and are living together against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 6 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 6. The petitioners have submitted a representation, dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2.

MEENU 2025.01.14 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-262-2025 -23.

Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3-State only. 4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State. 5.

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, to decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. This order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of their live-in-relationship. January 13, 2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2025.01.14 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document