Nancy And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 21, 2024 Nancy and another ......Petitioners

Versus

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

Present:

Mr.Rahul Singh, 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.1 to 3 to protect the life and personal liberty of the petitioners and to ensure safety of the person and property of the petitioners which is under threat at the hands of private respondents No.4 to 5 and their friends and relatives. It is further prayed to direct respondents No.1 and 3 not to falsely implicate petitioner No.2 and his family members into a false criminal case of abduction of petitioner No.1 at the behest of private respondents No.4 to 5 and their relatives and friends since petitioner No.1 has married with petitioner No.2 out of her own free will and without any pressure and undue influence from anybody. 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

-2apprehend danger from respondents No.4 and 5. Their marriage certificate, photographs and registration Certificate evidencing their marriage are on record as Annexures P-5 and P-6. The petitioners have submitted a representation, dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.2. 3.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3-State only. 4.

On asking of the Court, Mr.Sumit Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, 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-Superintendent of Police (SP), District Kaithal, Haryana to decide the representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners and grant them protection, 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. 6.

At this stage, Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 and has stated that respondents No.4 and 5 have no objection to the marriage of the petitioners but daughter of respondent No.4 was missing since 10.10.2024 and he has lodged the missing report with the police, which would be withdrawn by him after meeting petitioner No.1, i.e. his daughter.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioners are not present in person in the Court premises today and they have

-3performed marriage, which has been duly registered on 14.10.2024, Annexure P-7, and they are seeking protection from respondents No.4 and 5 and hence petitioner No.1 may not be in a position to meet them. 8.

Taking into consideration the above-said facts, it is directed that respondents No.4 and 5 be allowed to meet petitioner No.1, if she intends to do so.

9.

Disposed of in the above terms.

October 21, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No