Rama Devi And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2022 Date of Decision: 07.03.2022 Rama Devi and others .......... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Deepak K. Bartia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana **** SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL) 1.

Co-petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, are averred to have entered into a legal wedlock. From their wedlock, co-petitioner No. 3 (Shashi), is averred, to be born.

2.

Since, there was resistance to the afore marriage, rather by corespondent Nos. 4 to 9, and, has resulted in threats being meted to them, by co-petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Therefore, the petitioners earlier moved criminal writ petition bearing CRWP-10650-202,1 before this Court, claiming therein the relief for granting of police protection to them. In the afore made petition, this Court had directed the respondents concerned, to look into and decide, through a speaking order, the representation, as earlier made, and, as became carried in the afore petition. 3.

The respondents in pursuance to the afore made directions had made an order of 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-2). The operative part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- "

In compliance of the above orders / directions, the matter was got enquired into through the concerned Assistant Commissioner of

C.R.W.P. No. 1937 of 2022 -2Police, Panchkula. During the course of inquiry, the petitioners and private respondents have been joined the inquiry. The statements of petitioners/private respondents were recorded by the Inquiry Officer. As per statements, their parents / relatives have no objection with the marriage. On the basis of inquiry report duly supported by the statements, there is no danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of private respondents. The petitioners have also denied for police protection. Hence, no action is required to be taken by the local police.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the matter, the representation (Anneuxre P-6) of the petitioners is hereby considered and decided. The parties may be informed accordingly." 4.

Though, a reading of the afore extracted portion of Annexure P2, reveals that the petitioners had not claimed any police protection, as the above co-respondents had shown their no objection to the marriage solemnized inter se co-petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. 5.

Be that as it may, the petitioners aver in the petition, that yet the above co-respondents are hurling abuses at them, and, that in respect thereof, they moved a representation, appended as Annexure P-7, to the instant petition, rather before the authorities concerned. Consequently, they claim that this Court make a fresh order upon the respondents concerned to decide through a speaking order, representation Annexure P-7. 6.

Since, the afore representation is a cause of action which has occurred subsequently to the drawing of Annexure P-2, hence in pursuance to the order made by this Court, upon, CRWP-10650-2021, thereupon, the effect, if any, of Annexure P-2 survived only upto the makings thereof, rather by the authorities concerned.

C.R.W.P. No. 1937 of 2022 -37.

Consequently, it does not either operate as res judicata nor estops the petitioners to in respect of accrual of a fresh cause of action, hence subsequent Annexure P-2, hence claim the writ relief. 8.

Since, the learned State Counsel, does not have any objection, to an order being made by this Court to the respondents concerned, to look into and decide through a speaking order, representation Annexure P-7. 9.

Consequently, this Court directs the respondents concerned, to within three weeks hereafter, hence decide Annexure P-7, through a speaking order.

10.

Petition is disposed of.

11.

A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

March 07, 2022 ( SURESHWAR THAKUR ) 'dk kamra'

JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No