Simranjeet Kaur And Another v. State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP-844-2022 (O & M) Date of decision: 10.02.2022 Simranjeet Kaur and anr.

...... Petitioners V/s State of U.T., Chandigarh and ors.

...Respondents

(Through Video Conferencing)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Bansal, Addl.P.P., U.T., Chandigarh-respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. Rajnikant Upadhyay, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 & 7. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition is for grant of protection as the petitioners, who are a married couple, purportedly face a threat from the family members of the petitioner No.1-Simranjeet Kaur. Written statement by way of an application (CRMW-120-2022) has been filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. Allowed as prayed for. The same is taken on record.

As per the written statement, the actual father of Simranjeet Kaur is Surinder Singh and respondents No. 4 and 5 are issuless. Further the address of Surinder Singh, the actual father of petitioner No.1, is H.No.2213, Mani Majra Town, Chandigarh and that of Pal Singh-respondent No.4, the purported father, is House No.2238, Mari Wala Town, Mani Majra, SUKHPREET KAUR 2022.02.11 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh. It has also been added by the learned counsel that respondent

CRWP-844-2022 (O & M) ::2::

No.5-Kuldeep Kaur is not the mother of petitioner No.1and her actual mother is Baljinder Kaur.

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No.1-Simranjeet Kaur was adopted by Surinder Singh. The learned counsel appearing for U.T., Chandigarh, states that neither of the petitioners are residing at the address mentioned in the petition. In fact, the statement of the mother of petitioner No.2, who is a resident of House no.657, Dera Sahib, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, was recorded today morning i.e. 10.02.2022, in which she categorically states that the petitioners do not reside at this address. Her version is that the boy i.e. petitioner No.2-Shubham Goyal had left the home on 28.01.2022 and got married and has never come back thereafter.

In view of the aforementioned facts, at this stage, there does not appear to be any threat perception to the petitioners inasmuch as the respondents No.4 and 5 do not appear to be the parents of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioners have chosen to stay away from the police proceedings. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioners that if they face any threat from anyone including parents/adoptive parents of petitioner No.1, they are free to move another application in that regard to the authorities who shall consider the same and provide the necessary protection, if required. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE February 10, 2022 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2022.02.11 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document