Disposed

Usha Rani and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Feb 2024CRWP/1207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to assess threats against petitioners in a live-in relationship and pass necessary directions, relying on precedents regarding protection of couples against family threats.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 03.02.2024 and assess threat perception to pass necessary directions.

Usha Rani and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

112 2024:PHHC:027758

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP-1207-2024 Date of Decision: February 28, 2024

¶5

USHA RANI AND ANOTHER ........Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶7

Present: Mr. R.K. Kachura, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶8

¶9

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 so as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶11

As per contents made in the petition along with the documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and are stated to be in a “Live-in Relationship”.

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

¶14

It has been contended that petitioner No.1 was in live-inrelationship out of her own free wish and will and without there being any threat at the hands of petitioner No.2. It has been further submitted that the petitioner No.1 now having left the company, petitioner No.2 is having continuous threat at the hands of respondent No.4 to 17 and in this regard he has already submitted

¶15

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.02.29 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:027758

-2-

CRWP-1207-2024

representation dated 03.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka. It has also been contended that despite there being a continuous threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, at the hands of private respondents, the official respondents have failed to take any action in this regard.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon two decisions rendered by this Court in the case of “ Shilpa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others ” passed in CRWP-10101-2021 on 22.10.2021 and “ Pardeep Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana ” passed in CRWP No.4521 of 2021 (O&M) on 18.05.2021. The relevant paragraph No.6 from Pardeep Singh and another's case (supra) is reproduced as under for reference:-

¶21

“6. Let us examine the issue from another view-point. The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exits where the couple has entered into a live-inrelationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.”

¶22

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.02.29 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-3-

2024:PHHC:027758

CRWP-1207-2024

Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and without expressing any opinion upon the relationship being maintained by the petitioners, however, considering their age, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka to consider the representation dated 03.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) and assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, pass necessary directions to officer concerned in this regard.

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

¶28

It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State from proceedings against the petitioners, if involved in any other case.

¶29

28.02.2024 Tejwinder	(	HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶30

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.02.29 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Usha Rani and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Rani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Balkar Singh Alias Bali Vs State of Punjab

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kalwant Singh Alias Kalavant Singh Vs State of Haryana

Prithvi Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sahil @ Hanook Vs State of Punjab