Allowed

Sonia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2011CRM-M/15739/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filing by petitioners Sonia and Sandeep Kumar. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar, to examine a representation filed by the petitioners regarding threats faced due to their marriage, verifying their age and the threat's gravity, and providing protection if a serious threat is found.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar, to examine the petitioners' representation, verify facts regarding age, marriage, and threats, and provide protection if a serious t

Sonia & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-15739 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-15739 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.05.2011

¶6

Sonia and another

¶7

..........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present:Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. 28253 of 2011

¶16

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-15739 of 2011

¶18

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Sonia and Sandeep Kumar for issuing directions to the official respondents to protect their lives and liberty as they have solemnized their marriage contrary to the wishes of private respondents.

¶19

Both the petitioners are present in Court and claim themselves to be major on the basis of documents annexed with the petition and they are apprehending threats at the instance of private respondents.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have moved a representation (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar but no action has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners

¶21

(2)

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-15739 of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

would be satisfied if the representation filed by them is decided within some specified period and moreover, there is no legal impediments in issuing such directions.

¶24

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case as well validity and age of the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar to look into the representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioners and after verifying the factual position with regard to their age, marriage and apprehension at the instance of private respondents, if he comes to the conclusion that a serious threat is there, then necessary protection be provided as per law.

¶25

Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

May 20, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE

Sonia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 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

Boota Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kanwaldeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajbir Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ano.

Arun Kumar etc. Vs Ut Administration, Chandigarh

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab