Disposed¶29

Divanshu and Another v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2025CRWP/2658/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Protection of life and liberty; live-in relationship; writ of mandamus; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; CRWP-2658-2025 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Chandigarh; Harpreet Singh Brar J.; decided 08.04.2025; Divanshu v. State of Haryana; complaint dated 15.03.2025 to SP Yamuna Nagar; interim order dated 19.03.2025; State reply dated 05.04.2025; affidavit of Rajeev Miglani HPS, DSP Jagadhri; statements Annexure R-2 to R-6; private respondents denied harm; no threat perception found; no further directions issued; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the State's reply dated 05.04.2025 and the specific stand of learned State counsel, no further directions are required to be issued in the present petition, and the petition is disposed of accordingly. ¶29

Divanshu and Another Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should issue directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 6. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the State's reply recording the statements of the petitioners and private respondents and the conclusion that there was no threat to the petitioners' life and liberty, the Court found no basis for issuing further directions (implicitly accepting the absence of threat perception).

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J.), CRWP-2658-2025 (O&M), decided 08.04.2025 — Petitioners, asserting a live-in relationship evidenced by an agreement executed by way of affidavit, sought a writ of mandamus under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing respondents No. 1 to 3 (State) to protect their life and liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 6, alleging inaction on their complaint dated 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) to the Superintendence of Police, Yamuna Nagar. By interim order dated 19.03.2025 the Court noted that the petition disclosed no date, time, place or incident of threat, issued notice of motion, directed the parties to remain present, granted interim protection to the petitioners' life and liberty, and warned that the petition would be dismissed with cost if no threat perception was found. In compliance, the State filed a reply dated 05.04.2025 (affidavit of Rajeev Miglani HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar) enclosing statements of the petitioners and private respondents (Annexures R-2 to R-6); the private respondents categorically submitted they had caused no harm, and it was concluded there was no threat to the petitioners' life and liberty. Holding that, in view of the reply and the specific stand of learned State counsel, no further directions were required, the Court disposed of the petition.

¶1

235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRWP-2658-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.04.2025

¶3

DIVANSHU AND ANOTHER …Petitioners

¶4

V/S

¶5

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶7

Present: Mr. Aditya Partap Singh, Advocate with

¶8

Mr. Sunil Mani, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Mandeep Nehra, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 6.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶13

Petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of petitioners at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 6.

¶14

On 19.03.2025 following order was passed:

¶15

“ The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the protection of life and liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 6 by asserting that they are living in a live-in relationship.

¶16

Interestingly, a live-in relationship agreement by way of an affidavit has also been executed by the girl as well as the boy, which is not known to the legal cannons as to under which law such agreements are being executed. The petitioners have also lodged a complaint on 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) with the office of Superintendence of Police, Yamuna Nagar against the respondents No. 4 to 6 specifying the threat, however, it is alleged that nothing has been done by the Authorities which has constrained the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶17

Neither the present petition discloses any date, time, place or incident when the petitioners were threatened nor during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was able to demonstrate the same, however, he prays for some time to file specific affidavit along with

¶18

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRWP-2658-2025 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

details of telephonic conversation at least the date, time and the telephone number from where the threat calls were received.

¶22

Notice of motion.

¶23

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3-State.

¶24

The petitioners as well as respondents No. 4 to 6 are directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing.

¶25

Adjourned to 08.04.2025.

¶26

In the meantime, respondents No. 2 and 3 shall ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is protected. However, it is made clear that in case, it is found that there was no threat perception to the petitioners, the present petition shall be dismissed with cost.”

¶27

In compliance of order dated 19.03.2025, learned State counsel has filed reply dated 05.04.2025 by way of affidavit of Rajeev Miglani HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. Same is taken on record. Be tagged at the appropriate place. Copy of the said reply has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶28

Learned State counsel refers to para No. 6 and 7 of the said reply and submits that statements of the petitioners as well as private respondents have been recorded before the jurisdictional police authorities and their statements are attached with the reply as Annexure R-2 to R-6. Further, the private respondents have categorically submitted that they have caused no harm to the life and liberty to the petitioners and as such, it has been concluded that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid reply and specific stand of learned State counsel, no further directions are required to be issued in the present petition and the same is hereby disposed of accordingly.

¶30

08.04.2025

¶31

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶32

Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Divanshu and Another v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divanshu and Another v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pala Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surti Ram Vs State of Punjab

Ram Kishan etc. Vs State Ofhy.

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Haryana

Swati Sawhney and Another Vs State of Haryana