Harpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRWP-10429-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-10429-2024 Date of Decision: October 28, 2024 Harpreet Kaur ......Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr.Mohit Shukla Advocate for the petitioner.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents No.2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner at the instance of respondents No.4 to 8, as the petitioner wants to marry with her own wishes whereas her family is not agreeing with the same and with a further prayer to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner, as per representation, Annexure P-2. 2.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is of the age of majority and she is living in live-in-relationship with one Jaspreet Dass, who belongs to a different caste than that of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner being major has every right to choose her life partner, however, the same is being opposed by her family members, i.e. respondent No.4 to 8, tooth and nail. Apprehending danger from respondents No.4 and 8, petitioner has submitted a representation, MEENU 2024.10.28 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-10429-2024 -2dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.2. 3.

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

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, Sangrur, to decide the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner and grant her protection, if any threat to her life and liberty is perceived. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioner from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by her. Further this order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of her live-in-relationship with one Jaspreet Dass, as alleged in the petition.

October 28, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2024.10.28 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document