Suraj Singh & Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

Crl. Misc. No. M-6168 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 114 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-6168 of 2017 Date of Decision : February 23, 2017 Suraj Singh and another ....

Petitioners vs.

State of Punjab and others ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Affidavit of petitioner no. 1, filed today in Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, is ordered to be taken on record. It has been mentioned in the affidavit that the representation dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-4), as annexed to the petition, had, in fact, been made to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur and not to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. Addressing the same to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh in Annexure P-4 is a typographical error.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have married each other against the wishes of the father of petitioner No.1 and on account of this act on their part, they are under threat of being eliminated at the hands of respondent no. 4. In view of the above, seeking Monika 2017.02.23 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-6168 of 2017 protection, a representation dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-4) was made by petitioner no.1 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur but to no avail.

In the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, particularly the validity of the alleged marriage and the age of the petitioners, as projected by them in the present petition, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur (respondent No.2) to forthwith consider the aforesaid representation dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-4) made by petitioner no.1 and thereafter take appropriate action on the same as is deemed fit in accordance with law to ensure the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners.

It is made clear that this order shall not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE February 23, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.

Monika 2017.02.23 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document