Partly allowed

Sunita Devi and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CRM-M/10064/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court made an interim protection order from the petitioners absolute under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against threats from private respondents. The judgment clarified that this order neither validates the petitioners' marriage nor protects them from arrest for cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Make the order dated 04.04.2012 directing protection absolute, with specific clarifications regarding marriage validity and arrest protection.

Sunita Devi and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc.M-No.10064 of 2012(O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.M-No.10064 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:18.05.2012

Sunita Devi & anr.

.....petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab & ors.

¶9

.....respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ***

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶14

The petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking protection to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No.4 and 5.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit of Kirpal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Fatehgarh Churian, Police District Batala, has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and the same is taken on record.

¶16

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurdev Singh, Police Station Sadar Batala, submits that verification regarding the age of petitioner No.2 could not be concluded because of the nonavailability of the petitioners at the address given. Learned State counsel submits that after completing the enquiry regarding the age of petitioner No.2, action will be taken in compliance of the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by this court.

¶17

Faced with the above said situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant petition may be disposed of by making the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by this Court as absolute, so far as the

¶18

Criminal Misc.M-No.10064 of 2012(O & M)

¶19

¶20

providing of protection to the petitioners, is concerned.

¶21

In view of the above statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the directions issued vide order dated 04.04.2012 directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur-respondent No.2 to consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 03.04.2012 (Anneuxre P-5) and passing appropriate order thereon, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No.4 and 5, is hereby made absolute.

¶22

However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this order shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. I say so because neither it is the issue involved in the present petition nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the petitioners. In fact, it is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction, to decide the validity of the marriage and that too on the basis of the pleadings taken and the evidence led by the parties in the given circumstances of each case.

¶23

It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if they are found involved in the commission of any cognizable offence. In case the petitioners had committed any offence, the law will take its own course.

¶24

With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶26

18.05.2012 neenu

Sunita Devi and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi and Anr. v. State of Punjab 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

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

Hanif and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Laxmi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajeshwari Mishra Vs State of Haryana