Dismissed

Lucky and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/15907/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 CrPC sought directions to protect petitioners from threats by private respondents. The High Court disposed of the matter by directing the police superintendent to look into the petitioners' application regarding the threats.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent no.2 to look into the application Annexure P2 in accordance with law.

Lucky and Anr. Vs State of Pun… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-15907 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 15907 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 14, 2013.

Lucky and another

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Sherry K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. *****

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is for directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to protect life and liberty of petitioners at the hands of private respondents no.4 and 5.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners performed marriage as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 07.05.2013. It is further contended that earlier petitioner no.1 married with respondent no.4 on 05.12.2003 and two children were also born out of the wedlock and however, petitioner no.1 sought divorce from respondent no.4 and that both the children are in the custody of petitioner no.1 and however,

¶16

CRM No.M-15907 of 2013 2

¶17

there is threat to the life and liberty of petitioners as well as to the children of petitioner no.1 at the hands of respondents no.4 and 5. It is further submitted that age of petitioner no.1 has been mentioned as 28 years in the divorce proceedings, Annexure P1. He has also placed on record affidavit and copy of Middle Examination of petitioner no.2, showing his age as 29 years. It is further submitted that they have already moved an application, Annexure P2, in this regard before Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala and however, no action has been taken on the same.

¶18

In view of these facts and without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 –Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, to look into the representation/application, Annexure P2, in accordance with law, already stated to have been moved to him by the petitioners, in this regard.

¶19

May 14, 2013. ‘om’

Lucky and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky 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

Lalit Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Lalit Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Lalit Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Vikram @ Gandhi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bina etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.