Petitioners sought writ directions for life protection regarding an inter-family marriage. Police statements indicated no threat. Court declared petition infructuous and disposed of it.
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.
CRWP No. 2007 of 2021
����
210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 2007 of 2021 Decided on: 17th March, 2021
Rajni Devi and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN.
Present: Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)
The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
This petition was filed for issuance of directions to the official respondents No.1 to 3 for protection of life and liberty of the petitioners from the private respondents No.4 to 8 arrayed in the petition.
As per the pleadings the petitioners had performed marriage against the wishes of their parents and there was a threat perception.
On 26th February, 2021, the following order was passed:-
“This is a petition seeking direction to the official respondents to protect life and liberty of the petitioners, as they have solemnised the marriage
PANKAJ BAWEJA 2021.03.17 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
CRWP No. 2007 of 2021
����
against the wishes of parents of petitioner No. 1.
Notice of motion to the respondents No.1 to 3 only at this stage for 17.3.2021.
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana appearing on advance notice accepts the same. He submits that at the time of solemnising the marriage, petitioner No. 2 was not of marriageable age, rather in the heading of petition his age has been wrongly mentioned as 21 years. He further submits that the matter would be looked into from that prospect that petitioner No. 2 was not of marriageable age.
Be that as it may, in the meantime the police officials not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police should record the statements of the petitioners.
In case a request is made by the petitioners, they may be provided shelter in safe house till the next date.”
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Karambir Singh submits that the statements of the petitioners, brother and father of the petitioner No. 1 have been recorded. It is stated therein that there is no threat perception to the petitioners and they do not need any police protection.
In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no cause of action survives for pursuing the present petition.
The petition is disposed of as infructuous.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN)
17th March, 2021 pankaj baweja
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/ No Whether reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ BAWEJA 2021.03.17 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition seeking directions for protection of life and liberty in a marriage against parental wishes survives after law enforcement records statements indicating no threat perception.
Rajni Devi and another
State of Haryana and others
AVNEESH JHINGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
