Allowed

Laxmi & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CRM-M/10548/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Presenting an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection from alleged threat by private respondents, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure safety. The order clarified that protection does not validate an illegal marriage committed by minors nor shield parties from criminal proceedings for offences committed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; order for protection made absolute; clarification that order does not validate marriage or exempt from criminal liability.

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

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.M-No.10548 of 2012(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.M-No.10548 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:18.05.2012

Laxmi & anr.

.....petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶9

.....respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

¶13

Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for applicant-respondent No.5

¶14

¶15

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶16

Criminal Misc.No.28575 of 2012

¶17

The applicant seeks impleadment as party-respondent No.5.

¶18

Notice of this application was issued.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed, for the reasons stated therein. Applicant Suresh Kumar Saini, is ordered to be impleaded as party-respondent No.5.

¶20

Criminal misc.application stands disposed of.

¶21

Criminal Misc.M-No.10548 of 2012

¶22

The petitioners are present in the Court and identified by

¶23

their counsel.

¶24

The petitioners have approached this court, by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking directions against official respondents to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners as they were allegedly apprehending danger at the hands of private respondents.

¶25

Criminal Misc.M-No.10548 of 2012(O & M)

¶26

¶27

Notice of motion was issued and Superintendent of Police, Jind-respondent No.2 was directed to consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-4).

¶28

Reply of Ashok Kumar, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Jindrespondent No.2 has been filed in the form of affidavit dated 12.05.2012 on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

¶29

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Tek Chand, Police Station Alewa, District Jind, submits that as per the report of the Medical Board, the age of petitioner No.1 has been found to be 16-17 years. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has vehemently contended that petitioner No.1 was already married with respondent No.5 and she had been abducted by petitioner No.2.

¶30

In this view of the matter, vide order dated 17.05.2012, Superintendent of Police-Jind-respondent No.2 was directed to ensure the presence of the petitioners in the Court for today.

¶31

Petitioners are present in the Court. On the asking of the Court, petitioner No.1 Laxmi has categorically stated that she is living with petitioner No.2 on her own sweet will and without any kind of pressure. She has further stated that neither she wants to go with respondent No.4 nor with respondent No.5. Thus, it has become clear that petitioners are living with each other on their own sweet will.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and directions issued vide order dated 17.04.2012 to the effect that Superintendent of Police, Jind-respondent No.2 was directed to consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-4), dispassionately and expeditiously, passing appropriate orders thereon, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is

¶33

¶34

Criminal Misc.M-No.10548 of 2012(O & M)

¶35

caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners, at the hands of private respondents, is hereby made absolute.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶40

18.05.2012 neenu

Laxmi & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi & Anr. v. State of Haryana 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.

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

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

Rajeshwari Mishra Vs State of Haryana