Dismissed

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2011CRM-M/19050/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking relief from adversaries refusing to accept the petitioners' marriage was dismissed. The court held it cannot direct private parties to accept a marriage. Absence of proven threats meant no direction was issued, but police assistance was offered if threats arose. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued to respondents; petitioners advised to approach police for protection if threats arise.

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No.M-19050 of 2011(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM No.M-19050 of 2011(O & M) Date of decision : 9.9.2011

¶6

Raj Kumar and another

¶7

........Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

Present:- Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶12

Mr.S.S.Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana

¶13

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) :

¶14

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the petitioners with the plea that they got married and the marriage is not being accepted by respondents No. 7 and 8 and therefore, the petitioners are feeling threatened.

¶15

Reply has been filed through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh. It has been stated that the petitioners have not made any complaint with the police as regards any apprehension of threat from respondents No.7 and 8.

¶16

The stand of respondent No.7 is that he has already disowned petitioner No.1 from his movable and immovable property and has no concern with the petitioners. A publication to that effect has been made even in news paper 'Dainik Punjab Kesri'. The private respondents have also stated that they have not extended any threat to the petitioners. These facts were within the knowledge of the petitioners. However, the petitioners have not disclosed the same to this Court.

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM No.M-19050 of 2011(O & M)

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the private respondents are still not happy and are not accepting the marriage.

¶20

While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, this Court cannot issue directions to private respondents to accept the marriage. From the reply, it has been made out that the private respondents have not threatened the petitioners.

¶21

In view of the stand of the respondents, no direction needs to be issued in this petition.

¶22

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

In case the petitioners feel any serious threat from the private respondents in context of their marriage, they shall be at liberty to approach Incharge of concerned police station who shall take steps so as to ensure that no untoward incident take place.

¶24

(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE

¶25

9.9.2011 akm

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and 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

Gurdev Singh Vs Sarbdaman Singh and Ors.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kiran Mehta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Goyal & Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Dinesh Singh @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab