This is a writ petition seeking protection for the petitioners' life and liberty against private respondents. The High Court made the protection direction absolute, clarifying it does not validate their marriage or confer immunity from arrest for cognizable offences.
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.
Criminal Misc.M-No.10236 of 2012(O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.10236 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:23.05.2012
Amandeep Kaur & anr.
.....petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & ors.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: None for the petitioners
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab ***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioners have approached this Court, through the instant petition, seeking directions to the official respondents to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners as they were allegedly apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Surjit Singh, Police Station City Sardulgarh, District Mansa submits that the inquiry regarding the age of petitioner No.1 is still going on. Learned counsel for the State further submits that after concluding the inquiry regarding the age of petitioner No.1, appropriate orders would be passed in compliance of the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by this Court.
In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the State, the direction issued vide order dated 09.04.2012 regarding providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners is hereby made absolute.
The petitioners, if face the threat to their life and liberty, may appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa-respondent No.2, who shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 08.04.2012 (Annexure P-5), paassing an
2
Criminal Misc.M-No.10236 of 2012(O & M)
appropriate order, 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.
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.
With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
23.05.2012 neenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to make the direction regarding protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners absolute pending the inquiry on their age.
Whether the grant of protection implies legal validity of their marriage or immunity from arrest for cognizable offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amandeep Kaur & anr.
State of Punjab & ors.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
