Rajbir Masih And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRWP-9061-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP-9061-2022 Date of Decision: September 20, 2022 Rajbir Masih and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Rajender Kumar Dhania, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

By way of filing this petition, petitioners seek necessary protection of their lives and personal liberties in view of the fact that they have not solemnized their marriage so far and are living in the live-in relationship and are under eminent threats at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7. Petitioner No.1 - Rajbir Masih is aged about 20 years, therefore, not of marriageable age, whereas petitioner No. 2 - Bhavna is more than 20 years old.

In the context of threat perception at the hands of private respondents No.4 to 7, petitioners have allegedly moved representation dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar (respondent No. 2), wherein, all the apprehension to their lives has been expressed. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3.

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.09.20 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRWP-9061-2022 On asking of the Court, Mr. J.S. Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of State-respondents No.1 to 3.

Since the petitioners have not contracted any marriage and seek only protection qua their lives and personal liberties, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No. 2, to have a fair look on the grievance of the petitioners in order to ascertain veracity of allegations made by the petitioners.

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 liberties of the petitioners from being invaded by private respondents No. 4 to 7.

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. Respondent No. 2 would pass necessary order without being influenced by any statement of fact recorded here-in-above. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 20, 2022 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.09.20 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment