Courts dismissed petition seeking directions for protection from parental threats following interfamily marriage. State counsel recorded no objection; court dismissed case advising petitioners to approach police for grievances.
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 OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-33809 of 2010 Date of Decision:18.03.2011
Sheela and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:None for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioners, namely, Sheela and Dharmender for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 to 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they have solemnised marriage against the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1.
While issuing notice of motion on 17.11.2010, the following order was passed:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have solemnized their marriage contrary to the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1 and they are apprehending threats at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5 who are father and uncle of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel further submits that both the petitioners are major for the purpose of marriage and they are being threatened by the private respondents. The petitioners approached the police authorities but no action has
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-33809 of 2010
been taken.
Notice of motion for 14.12.2010.
Meanwhile, no case relating to their marriage as well as rape or kidnapping be registered against the petitioners.
Petitioners as well as parents of petitioner No.1 are directed to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing.” Reply on behalf of State has already been filed, which is on record. Learned State Counsel on the basis of reply submits that statements of the parents of petitioners have been recorded and they have sated that they have no objection with the said marriage and even the petitioners are not residing at the given address and it has also been stated by the parents of petitioner No.1 that no threat has bee given and in future also, they have no concern with the petitioners in any manner. Learned State Counsel further submits that in case the petitioners have any apprehension with regard to threat to their life, they can move to the police authorities in this regard and necessary action would be taken.
In view of statement made by learned State Counsel, no further action is required. In case, any grievance is there to the petitioners, they can move the application and in case any such application is moved by them, the same shall be decided by the concerned police authority in accordance with law.
Disposed of.
March 18, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to issue direction to respondents No.2 to 3 to protect petitioners lives and liberty from apprehended threats by parents after solemnizing marriage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sheela
Dharmender
State of Haryana
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
