Muskan Singla And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.08.2023 Muskan Singla and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Manish Bansal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sanjay Khan, Advocate for father of petitioner No.2.

Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6 **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who claim to have married after attaining the permissible age for marriage, against the wishes of the private respondents, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to protect them. 2.

Notices served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required. 3.

Counsel appearing for private respondents No.4 to 6 submits that there is no threat to life of the petitioners from the hands of private respondents and in fact they want to meet their daughter-petitioner No.1. Counsel appearing for father of petitioner No.2 submits that he has not arrayed as party to the petition. However, he has no objection to marriage of the petitioners and prayed for similar relief as of respondents No.4 to 6.

4.

If the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any

officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer require the protection, then at their request it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week. After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners.

5.

This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends. However, petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to shift the residence(s) and if the new place falls within the district, then the protection shall be extended to such place. This restriction saves the petitioner from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted. 6.

It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits and that this order is not a blanket bail in any FIR. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioners is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

7.

Keeping in view the statement made by counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 and considering the natural love and affection of the parents, they are permitted to meet their daughter on 13.08.2023 from 11 am to 1 pm. Parents of petitioner No.1 shall visit the home of petitioner No.2 and meet their daughter. At the time of their visit, petitioner No.2 shall be respectful towards parents of petitioner No.1 and shall behave in extremely respectful manner. He is further directed not to cause any humiliation. State to depute atleast one female officer dressed in civil attire who shall accompany the parents i.e. respondents No.4 to 6 at the time of their visit in the house of petitioners and shall ensure their safety. During their visit, respondents No.4 to 6 shall not threat or induce or instigate petitioner No.2. Counsel for respondents No.

4 to 6 may accompany them during such visit. It is clarified that protection officer deputed for the protection of petitioners shall also coordinate with the police officials accompanying parents and shall ensure protection of both the parties. Similarly, father of petitioner No.2 is permitted to visit petitioners on 13.08.2023 at 3 pm to 4 pm and police officials deputed for the protection of petitioners shall allow him alone to meet petitioner No.2 after frisking and shall ensure safety of petitioners.

8.

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today. 9.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 11.08.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.