Prince Sirohi And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (108 ) Date of Decision:-01.07.2026 PRINCE SIROHI AND ANOTHER ......Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present:

Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Swati Batra, Senior DAG, Haryana.

**** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, who are in a live-in relationship and they fear threat for their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No. 4 & 5. 2.

From a perusal of the present petition, it is apparent that both the petitioners are unmarried. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is a 20 years old boy and petitioner no.2 is a 18 years old girl. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are good friends for past one year and has decided to get married in future as and when petitioner no.1 will attain the marriageable age of 21 years. Therefore, both the petitioners started living together in a live-in-relationship. However, due to the threat being faced by parents of petitioner no.2, they have moved a representation dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-4).

3.

Notice of motion to the official respondents.

4.

Ms. Swati Batra, Senior DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

5.

The present petition is being considered only for the purpose of protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and the filing, pendency or the orders passed by this Court in this petition shall neither be construed as any stamp of the Court qua the promiscuous relationship of the petitioners nor shall be relied upon by any authority in any proceedings initiated against the petitioners under any other provision of law, hence, there is no necessity to serve the private respondent(s) or to seek a reply from them.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, District Kaithal, to take into consideration the request of the petitioners made vide representation dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-4) and take appropriate action, in accordance with law and in terms of the guidelines/SOPs issued vide judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP-12562-2023 dated 14.06.2024. 7.

It is made clear to the petitioners that, in case, any averments made in this petition or in the representation dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-4) are found to be incorrect, the State authorities are directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

8.

However, since this petition is being disposed of in limine, therefore, copy of the complete paper book be sent through registered post to respondents No.4 & 5, parents of petitioner No.2. 9.

Although, the State is duty bound to protect its citizens, however, in case, there is any criminal record of the petitioners, the present

order shall not be an alibi or an impediment against the authorities to proceed in accordance with law and the above order is subject to cross verification of the antecedents of the petitioners. Furthermore, it will be the responsibility of the concerned SHO to verify the original documents demonstrating the correct age and residential address of the petitioners before considering their representation after getting the same counterchecked by the private respondents. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 01.07.2026 Deepak Patwal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No