High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21685/2016disposed of

Reeta And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

2016-06-22Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.21685 of 2016 Date of decision: 22.06.2016 Reeta and another --Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others --Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu

Present:

Mrs. Suresh Saran, Advocate for the petitioners.

**** HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide protection to the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondent No.4 to 6.

It has been averred that the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 01.01.1997 and of petitioner No.2 is 01.01.1978. Copies of the certificates with regard to their age proof are attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively.

It is averred in the petition that the marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 21.06.2016 according to Hindu rites. The photographs of marriage ceremony are attached as Annexure P-3 & P-4 (Colly.). Private respondent No.4 is opposed to the marriage, as the petitioners had performed the marriage without her consent. The petitioners have submitted representation dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No. 2 seeking protection of their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents.

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2016.06.23 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document show signature

CRM-M No.21685 of 2016 -2The petitioners are present. Petitioner No.2 states that he is earning about Rs.20,000/- and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lacs in the shape of FDR in the name of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit a report the compliance of the aforesaid undertaking on the aforesaid date. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the validity of the marriage and the age of the petitioners and keeping in view the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. And another, 2006(2) SCC (Criminal) 478, the present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to look into the representation (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law.

List on 29.06.2016 for compliance.

22.06.2016 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) Atul JUDGE ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2016.06.23 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document show signature