← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/9573/2024disposed of

Diksha Sharma And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

2024-10-03Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj2 pages

CRWP-9573-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-9573-2024 Date of Decision: October 03, 2024 Diksha Sharma and another ......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.Naresh Paul Chandel, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 and 5 and not to interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioners at the behest of respondents No.4 and 5.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 and 5 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 and 5. Their marriage certificate evidencing their marriage is on record as Annexure P-3. Petitioner No.1 has submitted a representation dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2.

3.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3-State only. MEENU 2024.10.04 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-9573-2024 -24.

On asking of the Court, Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State. 5.

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, District Patiala, to decide the representation (Annexure P-4) of petitioner No.1 and grant protection to the petitioners, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. This order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners. October 03, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2024.10.04 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document