Anshu and Another Vs State of Haryana through Its Home Secretary and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anshu and Another Vs State of Haryana through Its Home Secretary and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No. 2 - Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, to look into the petitioners' representation dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-5)/the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, who apprehend danger from the private respondents after performing their marriage against the latter's will.

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 - Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents.

Key takeaways

Clarification: this order shall not be treated as a stamp of the Court's approval of the marriage of the parties, and no opinion has been expressed on the validity of the marriage.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Protection of life and liberty - married couple apprehending harm from private respondents. Petitioners, stating they performed their marriage against the will of the private respondents and fearing physical harm, sought police protection; their representation dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) to the Superintendent of Police, District Hisar had, per counsel, not been acted upon. Keeping in view the mandate in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(5) SCC 475, the petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 - SP, District Hisar, to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure no harm to the petitioners' life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents. The Court clarified that the order is not a stamp of approval of the marriage and expressed no opinion on its validity. (Punjab & Haryana HC, H.S. Grewal J., decided 17.03.2025.)

CRWP No.2563 of 2025 -1-

138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP No.2563 of 2025 Date of decision: 17.03.2025

Anshu and Another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and Others .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL

Present: Mr. S. K. Sirsa, Advocate for the petitioners.

H.S. GREWALJ.

The petitioners are seeking a direction to the official respondents to protect their life and liberty as they apprehend danger from private respondents. It is stated in the petition that petitioners have performed their marriage, which is against the will of private respondents and they have apprehension that the private respondents might cause physical harm to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners being major, got married against the wishes of private respondents. Ever since then, the petitioners are being threatened with dire consequences by the private respondents. Resultantly, a representation/ application dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) was also made to Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, wherein a mention has been made about the alleged threat perception. Learned counsel submits that despite the official respondents having been communicated about the alleged threat perception, no steps have been taken to come to the rescue of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that he would be satisfied if directions are

Sonia Puri 2025.03.19 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP No.2563 of 2025 -2-

issued to respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, District Hisar to look into their representation dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) and take appropriate steps at the earliest.

Notice of motion to respondents No. 1 to 3 only.

At the asking of the Court, Ms. Ankita Ahuja, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.

Keeping in view the mandate of Supreme Court in the case of “Lata Singh V. State of U.P. and another”, 2006(5) SCC 475, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 - Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.

It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a stamp of this Court about the marriage of the parties and no opinion with regard to the validity of the marriage has been expressed in this order.

17.03.2025 Sonia Puri		(H	.S. GREWAL) JUDGE
Whether speaking/ reasoned	:	Yes	/ No
Whether reportable	:	Yes	/ No

Sonia Puri 2025.03.19 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document