Disposed

Jyoti and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Feb 2014CRM-M/17624/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of a petition seeking protection of life and liberty against village ex-communication and denial of necessities. Court directed the SHO to ensure safety and basic facilities.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 (SHO) to ensure life and liberty protection, prevent harm, and facilitate access to basic necessities.

Jyoti and Ors. Vs State of Har… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-17624 of 2013 Date of decision : February 07, 2014

Jyoti and others

... Petitioners

vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shekhar Mudga, AAG, Haryana. Mr. S.S.Mor, Advocate for respondents No.7, 8 and 27.

¶10

Surinder Gupta, J

¶11

The petitioners have sought protection of their life and liberty from the hands of respondents.

¶12

The dispute started with the marriage of petitioners No.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the reason for entire trouble is that petitioner No.1 belongs to the 'Gotra' of most of the residents of the village particularly the private respondents and they have opposed the marriage of the petitioners No.1 and 2. The parents of petitioner No.1 had no objection to the marriage which was solemnized on 3.5.2013 and thereafter the private respondents have stood up against the petitioners by taking all source of action like 'ex-communicating them' and stopping supply of necessities of life etc.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondents No.7, 8 and 27, who are Sarpanch and Panch of the village, submits that the police has recorded statement of the respondents who had undertaken not to interfere in the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶14

The petition is disposed with direction to respondent No.3 to look into the representations dated 21.4.2013 (Annexure P/2) and take all possible measures provided under the law to ensure that life and liberty of the petitioners is protected and no harm is caused to their person and property. He will also look into this aspect that the petitioners are not Deepak Kumar 2014.02.13 10:44barred from enjoying the basic facilities and necessities of life due to any I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

¶15

-2-

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-17624 of 2013

¶17

decision taken by a group of persons in the village. The petitioners may contact the respondent No.3 i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh or respondent No.2 in case of any grievance which would be heard and redressed.

¶18

February 07, 2014 deepak

¶19

(Surinder Gupta) Judge

¶20

Deepak Kumar 2014.02.13 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh

Jyoti and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana

Sagar Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurnam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Employees State Insurance Vs Parminder

Arjun Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Virender Kumar Vs Ut Administration Chandigarh and Ors.