High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/10120/2022disposed of

Geeta And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

2022-10-21Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.117 CRWP No.10120 of 2022 Date of Decision: 21st October, 2022 Geeta & Another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) Both the petitioners have joined hands to prefer this petition for seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6 because they (petitioners) are living in relationship. It has also been mentioned in this petition that a representation (Annexure P-3) has already been moved to respondents No.2 and 3 in this regard.

Ms. Ambika Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the instant petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 only to look into and take appropriate action on the said representation of the petitioners, i.e SEEMA SHARMA 2022.10.21 16:40 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRWP No.10120 of 2022 ...2...

Annexure P-3.

Learned State counsel has no objection for the same. It is worth-while to mention here that as categorically mentioned in Para No.3 of the petition, petitioner No.1 is married to respondent No.4 and three children have born out of this wedlock. Be that as it may, keeping in view the intent of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the protection of life and liberty to the citizens as well as the afore-discussed limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the legality and validity of the relationship between the petitioners, respondent No.

2-Superintendent of Police, Panipat, is hereby directed to look into the above-said representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners genuinely deserve any protection, then to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is further clarified that this order shall not be construed to be a shield to the petitioners against any civil or criminal action/ proceedings already initiated or intended/contemplated to be initiated against them by any competent authority/person on account of their said relationship and permissible under the relevant provisions of law. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. 21.10.2022 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No SEEMA SHARMA 2022.10.