High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/2440/2020dismissed

Tinkle Kumari And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

2021-09-16Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh2 pages

CRWP-2440-2020 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-2440-2020 Date of Decision: 16.09.2021 Tinkle Kumari and another ...... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present :

Ms. Pooja Khosla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) Case heard via video conferencing.

By this petition, the petitioners seek protection of life and liberty at the hands of respondents no.4 to 6, upon the petitioners having married each other (as contended) against the wishes of the said respondents, on 03.03.2020.

Learned counsel appearing for counsel for the petitioners on the last date of hearing having stated that the petitioners no longer wish to pursue this petition, that request had been declined by this court on the ground that the said counsel (Mr. Lakhvir Kumar, Advocate), had no authority to make a statement as no power of attorney executed in his favour by the petitioners was on record.

Today Ms. Pooja Khosla, Advocate, appears for the petitioners with the vakalatnama on record being in her favour as also that of Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate, though it is seen that Ms. Pooja Khosla had not VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2021.09.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-2440-2020 -2signed that vakalatnama. The statement of the petitioners' counsel is recorded, with the petition ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, subject to Ms. Pooja Khosla signing the vakalatnama issued in her favour by the petitioners (whose signatures are seen to be present on the vakalatnama). Consequently if she does not sign the vakalatnama, the matter would be put up again for hearing after 15 days by the Registry. If of course she signes the vakalatnama in the meanwhile, the petition would be deemed to have been dismissed as withdrawn with effect from today itself. It is also to be noticed that finally a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State by way of an affidavit of the DSP, SubDivision Phagwara, District Kapurthala, dated 17.08.2021, which is ordered to be taken on record.

In the said affidavit also, it is stated that the petitioners had informed the police that they no longer seek protection of their life and liberty, they being under no threat.

Obviously if at any time in future the petitioners receive any threat to life and liberty, it would be their fundamental right to approach the SSP concerned who would then ensure that their life and liberty are duly protected, as per law.

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE 16.09.2021 adhikari Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2021.09.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document