Vimla And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CRWP-638-2025 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-638-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 22, 2025 Vimla and another ......Petitioners

Versus

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

Present:

Mr.Gobind Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) CRM-W-76-2025 Application is allowed, as prayed for.

CRWP-638-2025 1.

Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of private respondents and further a direction may kindly be issued to official respondents not to implicate the petitioners in any criminal case at the behest of private respondents and their other relatives/accomplices.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and are living together against the wishes of private respondents and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from private respondents. Petitioner No.1 has submitted a representation, dated 19.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2. MEENU 2025.01.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-638-2025 (O&M) -23.

Notice of motion to respondents no.1, 2 and 4-State only. 4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr.Sumit Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, 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-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, Haryana, to decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of petitioner No.1 and grant protection to the petitioners, 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 22, 2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2025.01.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document