Anchal @ Aachal And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR

CRWP-3946-2025 - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-3946-2025 Decided on : 23.04.2025 Anchal @ Aachal and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: None.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Endorsing the decision of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, and as a mark of respect and to mourn the sudden demise of Shri Bhupinder Singh Rathore, who was one of the oldest member of the Bar Council, the members of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association are observing "No Work Day" today, i.e. 23.04.2025. 2.

By way of filing this petition, petitioners seek necessary protection of their lives and personal liberty in view of the fact that they have not solemnized their marriage so far and are living in a live-in relationship, as petitioner No.2 is not of marriageable age, and are under eminent threat at the hands of respondent No.4. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in a live-in relationship against the wishes of respondent No. 4, and have sought protection to their life and liberty. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 - Anchal @ Aachal, is aged about 19 years and petitioner No. 2 - Vikram, is aged about 20 years, and they apprehend danger at the hands of private respondent No.4, who will eliminate them if they intend to solemnize the marriage at relevant time.

4.

In the context of threat perception at the hands of private respondent No.4, petitioners have allegedly moved representation dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda (respondent No.2), wherein, all the apprehensions qua their lives and liberty JAWALA RAM 2025.04.24 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRWP-3946-2025 - 2 - has been expressed.

5.

After perusing the case file, this Court is of the view that the present petition can be decided in limine, and this would not prejudice the rights of the respondents.

6.

Since, petitioners have not contracted any marriage and seek only protection qua their lives and personal liberty, and for the same already representation dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) is pending, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No. 2 to have a fair look to the said representation, on the grievance of the petitioners in order to ascertain veracity of allegations made by them.

7.

Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to devise his/her own mechanism to ascertain the truth. He/she would also be at liberty to join the petitioners or any other person acquainted with facts in issue. If the innocence of the petitioners is established, then respondent No.2 shall proceed to take appropriate action in order to protect lives and personal liberty of the petitioners from being invaded by private respondent No.4. 8.

The aforesaid order is being passed at this stage without meaning anything on the status of the parties on the basis of live-in relationship and age of petitioners. Respondent No.2 would consider and pass necessary order without being influenced by any statement of fact recorded herein-above.

9.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 23, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2025.04.24 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document