Partly allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2012CRM-M/13083/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to threats to their life from relatives opposing their marriage. The Court directed police to verify age and assess threat but clarified it did not validate the marriage or bar criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before Superintendent of Police for age verification and threat assessment; protection order issued subject to enquiry.

Rajni Devi @ Rajni Bala and Anr. Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. M-No.13083 of 2012(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. M-No.13083 of 2012(O & M) Date of Decision:04.05.2012

¶5

Rajni Devi @ Rajni Bala & anr.

¶6

.....Petitioners.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana & ors.

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present : Mr.Ashwani Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

¶14

Criminal Misc. No.26389 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. 13083 of 2012

¶18

Both the petitiones are present in the Court and are identified by their counsel.

¶19

The petitioners seek protection to their life and liberty. They have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') alleging that they being of marriageable age, got married with each other. The petitioners claim that their marriage is legal. The private respondents are not accepting the marriage of the petitioners alleging it to be against the social norms. The petitioners tried to persuade their parents and relatives but remained unsuccessful in their endeavour. The private respondents, it is alleged, are hell-bent to separate the petitioners from each other by resorting to illegal

¶20

¶21

Criminal Misc. M-No.13083 of 2012(O & M)

¶22

means. Thus, it has been pleaded that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their life and liberty from the private respondent. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon Annexures P-1 and P-2 submits that both the petitioners are major. However, there is no definite proof of age of petitioner No. 2 available on the record except his own affidavit Anneuxre P-2. They have married each other of their own free will but against the wishes of private respondents. Photographs of the marriage are appended as P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No.4 to 10 representation dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure P-5) was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, respondent No.2,, but no action thereon has been taken so far.

¶24

In view of the non-availability of definite proof of the age of petitioner No.2, petitioners are directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure P-5), after verifying the age of petitioner No.2 and shall pass an 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 respondents No.4 to 10.

¶25

Superintendent of Police, Ambala-respondent No.2 shall also be at liberty to pass the order granting protection to the petitioners even during the pendency of the enquiry regarding the verification of age of petitioner No.2, in case he is satisfied that there is imminent danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶26

However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this

¶27

Criminal Misc. M-No.13083 of 2012(O & M) 3

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

With the observations made above, the present petition stands

¶31

disposed of.

¶32

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶33

04.05.2012 neenu

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni Devi @ Rajni Bala and 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

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.

Bagga Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryanaetc.

Sukhwinder Singh @ Peter Vs State of Punjab and Ors.