Anjali And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

CRWP-1977-2025(O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-1977-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: February 27, 2025 Anjali and another ......Petitioners

Versus

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

Present:

Ms.Kusum Raj, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) CRM-W-257-2025 1.

Application is allowed as prayed for.

CRWP-1977-2025 2.

Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners and to save them from illegal as well as unnecessary harassment from the hands of respondents No.4 to 9. It is further prayed to direct respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners, dated 22.02.2025, Annexure P-3.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and are living together in live-in-relationship against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 9 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 9. They have submitted a representation, dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) to MEENU 2025.02.28 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-1977-2025(O&M) -2respondent No.2.

4.

Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3-State only. 5.

On the asking of the Court, Mr.Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana, has put in appearance through video conferencing on behalf of the respondents/State.

6.

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-Superintendent of Police, Mewat, to decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners and grant them protection, 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.

February 27, 2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2025.02.28 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document