Dismissed

Preeti Sukhija and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2011CRM-M/13211/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection from harassment, the Court found the petition infructuous when the petitioner expressly stated she wished to live with her husband and requested her parents not to interfere in her matrimonial life. The matter was dismissed with liberty to approach the police if threats persist.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rendered infructuous; liberty granted to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police if threats persist.

Preeti Sukhija and Anr. Vs State of Punjab… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-13211 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-13211 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 02.05.2011

¶6

Preeti Sukhija and another

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶12

Present:Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶17

¶18

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶19

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 to 8.

¶20

The petitioners along with their counsel are present in the

¶21

Court.

¶22

Notice of motion.

¶23

At this stage, Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 and requested that respondent No.5, who is the mother of petitioner No.1 be allowed to meet her daughter.

¶24

The request was accepted and respondent No.5, being the mother, was allowed to meet petitioner No.1 in the chamber. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 stated before this Court that she does not want to go with

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-13211 of 2011

¶26

¶27

her parents but wants to live with her husband i.e petitioner No.2.

¶28

In view of the above, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 states that he has instructions to state that the parents of petitioner No.1 shall not interfere in the matrimonial life of their daughter, who is married to petitioner No.2.

¶29

In view of the above, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.

¶30

However, in case, the petitioners still feels threatened, they are at liberty to approach respondent No.2 i.e the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, who shall look into their threat perception, if any, and take necessary measures, if so required, in accordance with law.

¶31

Disposed of as above.

¶32

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶33

02.05.2011 gurpreet

Preeti Sukhija and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preeti Sukhija and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh Vs U.T.Chd

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana

Ajit Singh and Ors. Vs State Transport Commissioner Haryana and Ors.

Jagdish Chander & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gagandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.