Sunil Kumar And ANR v. State Of Haryana Through Secretary And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-13772 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2016 Sunil Kumar and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Ms.Minakshi Paswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against State of Haryana, Superintendent of Police, Ambala, SHO P.S. Saha, Pardeep Kumar and Sudesh Rani for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 and 5.

It is mainly stated in the petition that petitioner No.1 was married to Sudesh Rani respondent No.5 in the year 2001 and petitioner No.1 is about 32 years of age. Petitioner No.2 was married to Pardeep Kumar respondent No.4 in the year 2008 and petitioner No.2 is about 27 years of age. After the marriage, petitioner No.2 started residing happily but respondent No.4 started harassing and humiliating petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 had gone to respondent No.4 as they were having good relationship and tried to make VINEET GULATI 2016.05.09 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-13772 of 2016 -2understand respondent No.4 to not to commit such like offences. As per the petition, petitioners are now hiding here and there to save their lives because respondent No.4 is after them.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record, especially the representation sent to Superintendent of Police, Ambala, copy of which is Annexure P-1. The perusal of the record shows that petitioner No.1 Sunil Kumar husband of respondent No.5 Sudesh Rani and petitioner No.2 Rajni wife of respondent No.4 Pardeep Kumar, are now residing together. The perusal of the representation Annexure P-1 nowhere shows any serious threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners. No injuries have ever been caused to the petitioners. There is no mention regarding any attack on the petitioners. No DDR has been placed on the record. No specific particulars have been mentioned regarding threats given by private respondents i.e. on which date, month and in which year.

Keeping in view the above facts, I do not find any merit in the present petition and therefore, the same is dismissed. April 27, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2016.05.09 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh