← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/8139/2024disposed of

Shayesta Ahmad And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024-09-17Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil4 pages

107-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 17, 2024 SHAYESTA AHMAD AND ANR ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:

Mr. S.K. Liberhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.

**** SANDEEP MOUDGIL , J.(ORAL) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to harass the petitioners at the behest of respondent Nos.4 to 8 or their relatives/friends to interfere with the liberty and lives of petitioners. In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, short reply dated 16.09.2024 by way of affidavit of Ms. Neha Aggarwal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Samana, District Patiala, has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by learned State counsel after conducting an inquiry into the matter. The relevant part of the same would

read as under:- '5. That petitioners have relied upon a representation dated 19.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) moved in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala.

6. That it is pertinent to mention here that on receipt of notice in the present petition and in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, a preliminary inquiry has been conducted by SHO Police Station City Samana through ASI Jajpal Singh, Police Station City Samana and during the course of the inquiry, both the petitioners were joined and they have given their statements before the inquiry officers. In the statements of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 has stated that she is living in the house of the petitioner No.2 happily and at her own and she does not apprehend any danger from her parents as well as the parents of petitioner No.2 and she does not want any police protection. Moreover, she is still Muslim by religion and her religion has not been converted in any manner. True translated copy of statement of the petitioner No.1 is attached herewith an Annexure R-1/T.

In the statement of petitioner No.2, he has stated that he is living with petitioner No.1 in live- in relationship as per their own consent at the house of petitioner No.1. Now, both the petitioners do not have any danger to their lives at the hands of parents of petitioner No.1 and they do not require any police protection at present. True translated copy of statement of the petitioner No.2 is attached herewith as Annexure R-2/T.

7. That even the inquiry officer has made efforts to join the parents of petitioners No.1 & 2, during which Kaka Ram (father of petitioner No.2) has also suffered his statement with the police that he and his wife Preeto Rani will not interfere in the lives of the petitioners nor they will cause any danger to their lives and liberty. True translated copy of statement of Kaka Ram (father of petitioner No.2) is attached herewith as Annexure R-3/T.

Apart from the parents of petitioner No.2, efforts were made joined the parents of petitioner No.1 in the inquiry by intimating them telephonically, however, the father, mother and brother of petitioner No.1 have sent their duly signed statement through Whatsapp, in which they have stated that they have no problem with the relationship of their daughter with petitioner No.2 and they will not interfere in their lives. True translated copy of statement of parents and brother of petitioner No.1 is attached herewith as Annexure R-4/T.

8. That from a detailed, thorough and meticulous inquiry conducted in the matter, it has come to light that both the petitioners are living in live-in relationship with their own free will and at present there is no threat perception to the petitioners. Moreover, as per the statements of parents of the petitioners, they have bound themselves not to interfere in the lives and liberty of the petitioners. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per the inquiry, it has also transpired that the petitioner No.1 belongs to Muslim religion and no act has been done to convert the religion of the petitioner No.1 against her wishes. On the basis of above said detailed inquiry, the representation moved by the petitioner has been consigned to record room. True translated copy of the inquiry report SHO Police Station City Samana, District Patiala as Annexure R-5/T.

9. That thus, there is no need of any police protection to the petitioners at present as there is no threat perception to the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.' In the light of above, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter and the question of providing protection also does not survive in view of the statement made by both the petitioners which has been made part of the police inquiry as well as are now before the Court and

said statements have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to press the instant petition any further.

In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 17.09.2024 Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No