Petitioners approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking police protection from private respondents. The court held the petition infructuous as petitioners alleged threats had subsided, clarifying this does not validate their marriage or grant immunity from criminal proceedings.
Petition disposed of as infructuous.
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.10795 of 2012(O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.M-No.10795 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:23.05.2012
Anuradha & anr.
.....petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & ors.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate 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 and pursuant thereto reply by way of affidavit of Gurnam Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (North) Amritsar, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed. Learned counsel while relying upon the averments taken in the reply submits that after verification both the petitioners have been found to be major. She further submits that the petitioners have got their statements recorded to the effect that threat perception was no more subsisting and they do not require police protection, any further. Learned State counsel also submits that in view of the above statements, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.
Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the
2
Criminal Misc.M-No.10795 of 2012(O & M)
petitioners fairly states that in view of the developments having taken place, the present petition does not survive and may be disposed of as infrucutuous.
In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the present petition is ordered to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
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.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
23.05.2012 neenu
Anuradha & 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
