Disposed

Manpreet Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2024CRWP/3748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, adults in a live-in relationship, sought protection of life and liberty from private respondents. The court relied on S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and directed the SSP Sangrur to examine their representation and decide it by a speaking order within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SSP Sangrur to decide representation by speaking order within one month.

Manpreet Kaur and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRWP No.3748 of 2024 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

117

¶4

¶5

CRWP No.3748 of 2024 Reserved on : 26.4.2024 Pronounced on : 22.07.2024

¶6

Manpreet Kaur and another ………….Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …….Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

¶8

Present: Mr. B.S. Singhvi, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶9

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks protection of life and liberty of the petitioners by contending that both of them having attained the age of majority and are living in live-in relationship. They apprehends danger to their lives and liberty at the hands of private respondents.

¶11

They have submitted a representation dated 22.4.2024 (Annexure P-3) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, but are still apprehensive about their security in view of the apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family members-respondents. 3. Notice of motion to official respondents only, at this stage. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. A copy of the paperbook be handed over to him during the course of the day.

¶12

Without commenting upon the merits of the case and in view of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of ‘ S. Khushboo v.

¶13

Ashwani Kumar 2024.07.30 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRWP No.3748 of 2024 -2-

¶15

Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 , wherein it is held that live-in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, by further holding that issue of morality and criminality are not coextensive, respondent no.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, is directed to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioners in their representation dated 22.4.2024 (Annexure P-3) and in case any substance is found therein with regard to the apprehension of threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, to decide the same in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from today.

¶16

The petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶17

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

22.07.2024

¶20

Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶21

Ashwani Kumar 2024.07.30 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manpreet Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Kaur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Mavi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs Vikas

Sukhdev Singh @ Laddi and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ashish and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurnam Singh Vs State of Punjab