Kameshwari And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRWP-10166-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP-10166-2022 Date of Decision: October 27, 2022 Kameshwari and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Prayer in the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, to provide protection of life and liberty to the petitioners, who have married against wishes of private respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No.1 - Kameshwari, aged about 19 years and petitioner No.2 - Rahul Singh, aged about 32 years, have got married on 19.10.2022, against wishes of their family members, arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It has been further submitted that private respondents are threatening and trying to interfere in the marital life of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. They have also submitted a representation dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, District Jalandhar, wherein, they have expressed PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.10.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRWP-10166-2022 their apprehension.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (State).

5.

In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Police, District Jalandhar, to look into the representation dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-5), qua threat perception, if any, and take necessary steps, if any required, in accordance with law, to ensure that life and liberty of the petitioners is not jeopardized at the hands of private respondents. However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 27, 2022 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.10.27 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment