The court made an order for police protection to the petitioners, made it absolute, and clarified that it does not legalize their marriage or provide immunity from arrest for cognizable offences.
Order directing the Superintendent of Police for providing security to the petitioners made absolute; petition disposed of.
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.
Crl.Misc.No.M-10210 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-10210 of 2012
Date of decision : 8.5.2012
Manpreet Kaur and another ...Petitioners Vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, for respondents no.1 to 3.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J
The petitioners have approached this court by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court for direction to the official respondents providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.
Both the petitioners are present in the court and are identified by their
counsel.
Notice of motion was issued.
In compliance of the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by this court, reply by
way of affidavit of Rajinder Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganaur,
Crl.Misc.No.M-10210 of 2012
2
Distt.Sonepat has been filed on behalf of respondents no.1,2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from ASI Mohinder Singh, Police Station Ganaur, Distt.Sonepat, submits that the petitioners do not require any police protection because the parents of petitioner no.1 are no more. Father of petitioner no.2 has disowned him issuing a statement in the newspaper also. Thus, learned counsel for the State submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents no.4 to 6, who are uncle and brothers of petitioner no.1.
Be that as it may, so far as the direction issued vide order dated 9.4.2012 to Superintendent of Police, Sonepat-respondent no.2 for providing security to the petitioners is concerned, the same is hereby made absolute. It is further clarified that as and when the petitioners approach the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat,respondent no.2 apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents, their threat perception shall 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 petitioners at the hands of private respondents no.4 to 6.
So far as the age of petitioner no.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the State submits that she is going to attain the age of 18 years on 10.7.2012. However,
Crl.Misc.No.M-10210 of 2012
3
learned counsel for the petitioners disputes this assertion relying upon the affidavit of petitioner no.1 to contend that her date of birth is 2.2.1992 and she has already completed the age of 18 years. However, this is not the issue involved in the present petition.
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.
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.
In view of the observations made above, the present petition stands
disposed of.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
8.5.2012 GS
Crl.Misc.No.M-10210 of 2012 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to direct the police to provide protection to the petitioners from their relatives.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manpreet Kaur and another
State of Haryana
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
