Disposed

Sumanpreet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2012CRM-M/10350/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the Commissioner of Police Amritsar to consider the petitioners' threat perception and ensure their safety against private respondents. The court clarified this order does not validate the petitioners' marriage or grant immunity from arrest. The petition was disposed of as rendered infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Police, Amritsar directed to consider the petitioners' threat perception raised vide representation dated 11.4.2012 and pass appropriate order to ensure safety.

Sumanpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-10350 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-10350 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.5.2012

¶5

Sumanpreet Kaur and another

¶6

.....Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Deepak Balyan,Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate respodnents No. 5 to 8.

¶14

¶15

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶16

The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), invoking its inherent jurisdiction, seeking direction against official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners as they are apprehending danger to their life at the hands of private respondents.

¶17

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit of Gurnam Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police (North) Amritsar City, on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, has been filed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bachan Singh, Police Station Mohkampura, District Amritsar, submits that petitioners have not approached any police authorities of District Amritsar so far, for seeking the protection. He further submits that as and when the petitioners will approach the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar-respondent No.2, raising the threat perception, same shall be considered, in accordance with law.

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. M-10350 of 2012 (O&M) 2

¶20

The learned counsel for private respondents No. 5 to 8 vehemently contended that petitioner No.1 was minor and her custody may be given to her parents.

¶21

On verification of the age of petitioner No.1, she has been found to be the age of seventeen and half years old, her date of birth being 7.9.1994 as per school record. In this view of the matter, petitioner No.1 being more than seventeen years of age had already reached the age of discretion. The instant one is a petition only for providing protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶22

In view of the facts of the present case and to secure the ends of justice, Commissioner of Police, Amritsar-respondent No.2 is directed to consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners, vide their representation dated 11.4.2012 (Annexure P-5) and pass 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-10350 of 2012 (O&M) 3

¶26

cognizable offence. In case the petitioners had committed any offence, the law will take its own course.

¶27

In view of the above, all the miscellaneous applications have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶28

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶29

30.5.2012 sjks

Sumanpreet Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanpreet Kaur 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

Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pradeep and Ors. Vs Manohar Singh and Anr.

Subeg Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rani and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Saina Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaswinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.