Anjali Saini And Another v. State Of Haryana & Others

Crl. Misc. No. M-24267 of 2017 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24267 of 2017 Date of Decision : July 11,2017 Anjali Saini & another ...................................................... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana & others................................................. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...

Present:

Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

...

LISA GILL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for protection of their life and liberty as they apprehend danger at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 7 as they have married each other on 06.07.2017 against the wishes of the said respondents. Both the petitioners, duly identified by their counsel, are present in Court and on being asked submit that they have solemnized marriage between themselves out of their own free will and volition.

It is contended that the petitioners are major, their dates of birth being 26.06.1995 and 15.04.1996 respectively. True copies of Aadhar Cards of both the petitioners have been appended with the petition as Annexures P1 and P2 respectively. The marriage certificate and photographs of the marriage are on record as Annexures P3 & P4 respectively. It is Rupinder Kaur 2017.07.12 16:04

Crl. Misc. No. M-24267 of 2017 [ 2 ] submitted that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P5) to respondent No.2 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Panipat for redressal of their grievance but no action has been taken thereon. Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Haryana. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to

3. A copy of the petition has been handed over to learned counsel for the State.

Without commenting upon the validity of the marriage of the petitioners or the validity and genuineness of the documents/photographs appended with the petition, respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police, Panipat is directed to decide the representation dated 07.07.2017 submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate action keeping in view the threat perception to the petitioners.

It is, however, made clear that this order shall have no effect on the validity of the alleged marriage of the petitioners and neither will any other civil or criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners be barred due to this order.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

( LISA GILL ) 11.07.2017 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No