Partly allowed

Bagga Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryanaetc.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2012CRM-M/12909/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench disposed of a petition by two major petitioners who married against family wishes fearing for their lives. The court directed the SP to verify the petitioner's age and grant police protection if danger is imminent, while clarifying the marriage's legal validity and non-shielding from criminal arrests remains unchanged.

What did the court decide?

SP directed to verify petitioner No.2's age; SP to consider representation and potentially grant police protection pending inquiry.

Bagga Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryanaetc. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No. M-12909 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-12909 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 04.5.2012

¶6

Bagga Singh and another.

¶7

..... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶12

PRESENT:Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

¶15

CRM No. 26047 of 2012

¶16

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶18

CRM No. 26556 of 2012

¶19

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶20

Affidavit of Sunaina-Petitioner No.2 is taken on record as

¶21

Annexure P-5.

¶22

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶23

CRM No. M-12909 of 2012 -2-

¶24

CRM No. M-12909 of 2012

¶25

Petitioners are present in Court and identified by their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and they have married each other on their own free will, against the wishes of private respondents. However, no proof of age of Petitioner No.2 is available on the record except her affidavit Annexure P-5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their lives and liberty from the private respondents. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite the representation dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P-4), having been duly submitted to the SHO, Police Station Yamuna Nagarrespondent No. 3, no action is being taken thereon and the petitioners are apprehending danger to their lives and liberty at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 10.

¶27

In view of the non availability of proof of age of Petitioner No.2 on the record of this case and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No.2 is directed to get the age of Petitioner No.2, verified and thereafter he may consider the representation dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P-4) and issue necessary orders, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the lives and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 10. Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No.2 would be at

¶28

CRM No. M-12909 of 2012

¶29

-3-

¶30

liberty to grant police protection to the petitioners even during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the age of Petitioner No.2, in case he is satisfied that there is imminent danger to their lives and liberty from the private respondents

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

( RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ) JUDGE

¶35

May 04, 2012 sham

Bagga Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryanaetc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bagga Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryanaetc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dilbagh Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh @ Peter Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajni Devi @ Rajni Bala and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.