Disposed

Sarika and Anr. v. Ssp Ropar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jun 2011CRM-M/6954/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a special bail petition seeking protection against false implication in a criminal case related to the petitioner's remarriage, noting the death of the first husband's son and stating no orders were required as no threat was established.

What did the court decide?

No further orders passed; Petitioners directed to approach authorities as per Home Department instructions if protection required.

Sarika and Anr. Vs Ssp Ropar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-6954 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-6954 of 2011 Date of decision:-01.6.2011

Sarika and another

...Petitioners

Versus

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:None for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Guninder S. Brar, AAG Punjab. Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶13

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶14

The petitioners have sought direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to protect their life and liberty and from their false implication in any criminal case at the instigation of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶15

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed reply today. As per reply filed, petitioner No.1 was earlier married with Manohar Lal son of respondent No.4. She has two children from her earlier marriage. On 15.1.2011 Manohar Lal died. Within two weeks thereafter petitioner No.1 left the matrimonial house with petitioner No.2 on 4.2.2011. The younger son Saurav accompanied her. An information in this regard has been given to Haroli police on 9.2.2011. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 approached this Court that on 18.2.2011 for seeking protection after solemnizing marriage with petitioner No.2.

¶16

The respondents have not threatened to the petitioners and have no

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-6954 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

objection to their marriage. On 17.3.2011 Saurav, the younger son of petitioner No.1 died. The respondents have given a representation to the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure R3/3) dated 15.4.2011, which is pending under consideration.

¶20

In view of above, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of and no further orders are required to be passed.

¶21

However, if the petitioners required any protection, they can approach to the Authorities as per the instructions dated 10.8.2010 issued by the Home Department, Punjab.

¶22

This order will not come in the way of the investigation, which will be carried out on the complaint filed by the respondents (Annexure R3/1).

¶23

June 01, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Sarika and Anr. v. Ssp Ropar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika and Anr. v. Ssp Ropar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs F.C. Appeals Pb and Anr.

Buta Singh Vs Fc Punjab & Ors.

Buta Singh Vs F.C., Revenue, Punjab and Others

Sukhbir Singh and Ors. Vs the Financial Commi. and Ors.

Hardial Singh and Ors. Vs Dir. Rural Development and Panchayat, Pb.& Ors.

Sewa Singh Vs Commissioner, Ambala Divn. etc.