Imran v. State Of Haryana And Others

CRM-M-39199-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39199-2024 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 Imran

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Rose Gupta, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1.

Petitioner who is father of respondent No.2 and father-in-law of respondent No.3 seeking launch of prosecution under Section 340 CrPC for giving wrong affidavit concealing their age and showing them major has come up before this Court under Section 340 r/w 482 CrPC.

2.

On the last date, petitioner was absent, as such this Court appointed Mr. Rose Gupta, Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 3.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the pleadings and its analysis would lead to the following outcome. 4.

Petitioner's grievance is that a wrong protection order was obtained by respondents No.2 and 3 vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in CRWP No.6825 of 2024. In the said petition, respondents No.2 and 3 (petitioners therein) claimed that they have performed Nikah on 11.03.2024 and have also placed on record copy of school withdrawal certificate, copy of Aadhar card and copy of nikahnama as Annexures P-1 to P-3 respectively.

5.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not decide the petition on merits but had disposed of the petition by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners therein Annexure P-4. It was also observed that this order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on legality and validity of marriage. Thus, no actual loss was caused to the petitioner as the order was only confined to deciding of representation.

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRM-M-39199-2024 6.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to inquire into the Date of Birth and wrong affidavit filed by the respondents No.2 and 3.

7.

Given above, it is not a case worth issuing notice and the same is accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.03.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh