Roshni And ANR. v. State Of Punjab And Others

2023:PHHC:119096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8893-2023 Date of decision: 12.09.2023 ROSHNI AND ANR ....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: - Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 7. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, both major, have solemnized their marriage on 02.09.2023 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. He also refers to the marriage certificate dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-3). He also referred to the Aadhar Cards (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2) of the petitioners to show that the petitioners are major.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the private respondents No.4 to 7 are not accepting the marriage of the petitioners and they apprehend danger to their life and liberty from the private respondents and in this regard they have already moved a representation dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-4) before respondent No.2- The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar.

2023:PHHC:119096 CRWP-8893-2023 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On the asking of the Court, Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab, present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State-respondents. 6.

Without commenting on the validity of the marriage and the inter se relationship of the parties, the petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2- The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar, to consider the representation (Annexure P-4) keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and if so warranted, take action, to ensure protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law. 7.

This order is not to be construed as any opinion with regard to the age of the petitioners or factum or validity of their marriage in any civil or criminal proceedings nor the petitioners would be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in commission of any cognizable offence(s).

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 12.09.2023 kanika i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No