Disposed

Manpreet Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Mar 2021CRWP/618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection against family threats after marrying against wishes. Court directed State police to investigate alleged threats but clarified the direction does not validate the marriage or bar civil/criminal actions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 (Sr. Superintendent of Police) to look into the representation regarding threat perception and take necessary steps to ensure life and liberty of petitioners are not jeopa

Manpreet Kumar and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

217

¶3

CRWP-618-2021 Decided on : 09.03.2021

¶4

Manpreet Kumar and another

¶5

. . . Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

. . . Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab. ****

¶12

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)

¶13

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3, to provide protection of life and liberty to the petitioners, who have married against the wishes of private respondents.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No.1 – Manpreet Kumar, aged 23 years and petitioner No.2 – Kajal, aged 25 years, have got married on 14^th January, 2021, against the wishes of their family members, arrayed as respondents No.4 to 6. It has been further submitted that the private respondents are threatening to interfere in the marital life of the petitioners. Hence, they are seeking protection in that regard and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

¶15

On the last date of hearing i.e. on January 22, 2021, while issuing notice on notice of motion to the State, the learned State counsel was directed to verify the facts of the instant petition and existence of JAWALA RAM 2021.03.09 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and alleged threat perception, if any. authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRWP-618-2021 - 2 -

¶17

In compliance thereto, learned State counsel very fairly conceded that he has no instructions in the matter.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

In the circumstances and in view of the factum of the petitioners having solemnized their marriage on 14^th January, 2021, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 – Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar, to look into the representation dated 15^th January, 2021 (Annexure P-4) qua threat perception, if any, and take necessary steps, if any required, in accordance with law, to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents. However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between the parties and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.

¶20

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE

¶21

March 09, 2021 J.Ram

¶22

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶23

JAWALA RAM 2021.03.09 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Manpreet Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Suman Vs State of Haryana

Monika Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others

Salma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Mohammad Shadab Alias Haji Alias Naushad Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.