Mamta And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others

...1...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.110 Date of Decision: 30th June, 2021.

Mamta & Another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Others

...Respondents

(Heard through Video-Conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Nitin Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) Both the petitioners have joined hands to prefer this petition for seeking the relief of the issuance of a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6, the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 respectively, because they (petitioners) are living in relationship. It has also been mentioned in this petition that a representation (Annexure P-3) has already been moved to respondent No.2 in this regard. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only. Mr. Apoorv Garg, learned Deputy Advocate General,

...2...

Haryana, who has joined the proceedings on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in this case in pursuance of the copies of this petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance, accepts the notice on behalf of these respondents.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate action on the said representation of the petitioners, i.e. Annexure P-3. Learned State counsel has no objection for the same. It will also not be out of place to mention here that learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are present with him in compliance of the direction issued by the Court vide order dated 23.06.2021. Though petitioner No.1 (as identified by her counsel) states that she is actually about 25 years old but the fact remains that in her Aadhar Card Annexure P-1, her date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1980.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the intent of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the protection of life and liberty to the citizens and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the validity and legality of the relationship between the petitioners, respondent No.2-the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, is hereby directed to look into the said representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) and if it is found that the petitioners genuinely deserve any protection, then to take

...3...

appropriate action in accordance with law.

It is further clarified that this order shall not be construed to be a shield to the petitioners against any proceedings already initiated or intended/contemplated to be initiated by the competent authority/person on account of their said relationship and permissible under any relevant provisions of law.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 30.06.2021.

seema Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether Reportable?

Yes/No