Jagseer Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CRWP No.4641 of 2021 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.4641 of 2021 Date of decision:25.05.2021 Jagseer Singh and another ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

This is the second petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 to 6. The first petition (CRWP No.4210 of 2021) was withdrawn on 13.05.2021 (Annexure P-6) with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars. Jagseer Singh son of Gurmail Singh (petitioner No.1) claims to be 20 years and Lakhbeer Kaur daughter of Sukhpal Singh (petitioner No.2) claims to be 20 years of age. They have pleaded that they have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 6 and seek protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 6. They have placed on record marriage certificate and photographs, Annexures P-3 and SAVITA KADIAN 2021.05.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRWP No.4641 of 2021 {2} P-4, respectively claiming that they married on 27.04.2021. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 28.04.2021, Annexure P-5 to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed by a Division Bench in LPA No.385 of 2016 titled as Elaichi and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 16.05.2016 and a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.17069 of 2019 titled as Kawaljeet Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 24.06.2019 to submit that even though boy was not of marriageable age, this Court had entertained their petitions for protection of their life and liberty.

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with directions to respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners, Annexure P-5 and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a stamp of this Court for the marriage of the petitioners. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE May 25, 2021 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2021.05.25 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh