Petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought protection against respondent No.4, claiming danger due to inter-matrimonial marriage. Court directed SSP Kapurthala to investigate petitioners' representation.
Directed Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala to look into the representation preferred by petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-23962 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2011
Navjot Kaur & another
State of Punjab & others
...Petitioners Versus ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. HPS Rahi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection, as they apprehend danger to their life and liberty at the hands of respondent No.4.
The petitioners claim that both of them are major and have married each other against the wishes of their parents. Reliance is placed on judgment reported as Fiaz Ahanger & Ors. v. State of J & K, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 217.
Notice of motion to official respondents.
On asking of the court Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice.
Without expressing any opinion with regard to age or validity of marriage of the petitioners, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala/ respondent No.2, to look into the representation, Annexure P-5, preferred by the petitioners and take appropriate steps if circumstances so warrant.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
17.8.2011 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted when petitioners apprehend danger to life and liberty regarding their marriage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Fiaz Ahanger & Ors. v. State of J & KExplained¶10
Fiaz Ahanger & Ors. v. State of J & K, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 217.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navjot Kaur
another
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
