Dismissed

Parul Sharma & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Feb 2017W.P.(CRL)/466/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection against their father due to a marriage against his will. The court recorded that both are majors, father assented, and undertook not to threaten them. The petition was disposed of in terms of the undertaking and notice of u/s 14 BB NSA and Sec 134 CrPC quashed as no threat is threatened. The petition stands disposed of. (Note: The actual judgment is very short and spe

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as respondent no.3 undertook not to threaten or coerce petitioners; notices quashed.

Parul Sharma & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~28.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 466/2017

¶4

PARUL SHARMA & ANR.

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

¶9

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr. Siddarth Sindhu, Adv. for State with SI Naresh Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

¶11

O R D E R % 14.02.2017

¶12

Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the State. Mr. Rishabh Sharma appears and he is identified by the IO. He states that he is the son of Anup Sharma, who is impleaded as respondent no.3. In fact, respondent no.3 has passed away last year.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner states that due to a typographical error, the name of Anup Sharma has been shown as respondent no.3 and the petitioner intended to implead Rishabh Sharma. The memo of parties be read accordingly.

¶14

The petitioners have preferred this petition to seek protection since they apprehend harm at the hands of respondent no.3 on account of the fact

¶15

that they have got married out of their own free will and accord, which is not to the liking of respondent no.3. Both the petitioners are major.

¶16

Mr. Lao has tendered in court a status report, which is taken on record. Mr. Lao submits that the school certificates of Class 10 and 12 of petitioner no.1 show that her date of birth is 30.04.1998, which means that she is a major.

¶17

Respondent no.3 states that he has no objection to the marriage of the petitioners and he has assured the court that he shall not issue any threat or coerce the petitioners for any reason whatsoever. The said statement and undertaking given by respondent no.3 is taken on record and he shall remain bound by the same.

¶18

The original school leaving certificates of petitioner no.1 have been delivered to counsel for the petitioner in court today.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 sr

Parul Sharma & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parul Sharma & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath @ Vicky Vs State

Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dheeraj Jain Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ram Kumar Yadav Vs State & Anr.

Prabhat Singh Vs State

Omvir Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Md. Irshad Vs Delhi Police Trhough Commissioner of Police

Dev Kant Kamal Vs State

Somnath @ Vicky Vs State

Ram Kumar Yadav Vs State & Anr.

Dr Manuj Gupta & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Prakash Srivastav Vs State & Anr.

Vikas Yadav Vs State & Ors.