Disposed

Sanju Bala & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CRM-M/1012/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection under inherent criminal jurisdiction. The court made a previous security order absolute, permitted one petitioner to stay with parents based on her statement, and clarified that this order does not validate the marriage or shield parties from arrest for criminal offences.

What did the court decide?

Previous security order made absolute; petitioner no.1 permitted to stay with parents; clarification on lack of marriage validation and criminal protection.

Sanju Bala & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.M-1012 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M-1012 of 2012 Date of decision : 8.5.2012

¶5

Sanju Bala and another ...Petitioners Vs.

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anmol Grewal, AAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondents no.3,4,6,7,8,10 and 11.

¶11

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J

¶12

The petitioners have approached this court by way of instant petition

¶13

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court for issuance of directions to respondents no.1 and 2 to ensure protection of life and liberty of the petitioners at the hand of private respondents.

¶14

In compliance of the order dated 11.1.2012 passed by this court, reply has

¶15

been filed by way of affidavit of Vibhor Kumar,PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Abohar, Distt. Fazilka, on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, which is taken on record. In terms of the reply filed by the State, petitioner no.2 has been found to be minor, her date of birth being 19.5.1995 (Annexure R-2/T). It has

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M-1012 of 2012

¶17

¶18

been further stated that the petitioners never approached the police for getting the police protection nor the private respondents ever threatened the petitioners. It is also stated that there was no danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents. Similar is the reply filed by way of affidavit of Kuldip Kumarrespondent no.3, which is also taken on record. It is stated in his reply that petitioner no.1 was minor on the date of alleged marriage with petitioner no.2.

¶19

Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for petitioner no.2 Govind Ram @ Raju submits that he is still apprehending danger to his life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.

¶20

Be that as it may, so far as the direction issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka-respondent no.1 vide order dated 11.1.2012 for providing security to the petitioners is concerned , the same is hereby made absolute. As and when petitioner no.2 Govind Ram @ Raju approaches the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka-respondent no.1, his threat perception would be considered dispassionately and expeditiously, passing an appropriate order thereon, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of private respondents.

¶21

So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, she has left the company of petitioner no.2 on her own. She is present in the court and has specifically stated that she is living with her parents on her own sweet will. She has further stated that she does not want to go with petitioner no.2 Govind Ram @ Raju. In the peculiar fact

¶22

Crl.Misc.No.M-1012 of 2012

¶23

¶24

situation of the present case, coupled with the statement made by petitioner no.1Sanju Bala, she is permitted to stay with her parents.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

In view of the observations made above, the present petition stands

¶28

disposed of.

¶29

8.5.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE

Sanju Bala & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Bala & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 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

M/S Soniques (India) Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S Sahara India Commerical Corpn. Ltd.

Raghbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Asha Thakur Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.