Disposed¶21

Joginder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2025CRWP/3625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRWP-3625-2025 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Harpreet Singh Brar; Article 226 mandamus; protection of life and liberty; live-in relationship of consenting adults; petitioner No.2 married to respondent No.7; threats from private respondents No.4 to 7; representation dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-3); SSP Sangrur; one-week direction to respondent No.2; protection in accordance with law; no immunity from legal action; disposed on 09.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioners' representation dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) within one week of receipt of the order and grant them protection, if there is any threat to their life and liberty, in accordance with law; the order confers no protection from legal action for violation of law. ¶21

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No.1 to 3 should be directed to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners against threatened harm from respondents No.4 to 7 arising out of their live-in relationship.

¶14

Court's answer

Petition disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-3) within one week of receipt of the order and to grant them protection, if there is any threat to their life and liberty, in accordance with law.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The order shall not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any committed by them.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Court declined to comment on the relationship of the petitioners or to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file while disposing of the petition.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J., oral order) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a couple alleging that, despite being consenting adults in a live-in relationship (petitioner No.2 being already married to respondent No.7), they faced threats to life and liberty from private respondents No.4 to 7, and that their representation dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondents No.2 and 3 and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur had elicited no action. Without commenting on the relationship or evaluating the evidentiary value of the documents on file, the Court directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation within one week of receipt of the order and to grant protection if any threat to life and liberty existed, in accordance with law, clarifying that the order would not shield the petitioners from legal action for any violation of law committed by them.

¶1

CRWP-3625-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

126

¶5

CRWP-3625-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.04.2025

¶6

Joginder Singh and another

¶7

....Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶12

Present: Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for 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 7.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners, both consenting adults, decided to live together. The petitioner No.2 is already married with respondent No.7 but on account of the matrimonial dispute, she has been thrown out of the matrimonial home. Despite efforts to explain that they are well-settled, mature individuals, their families continued to oppose their live-in relationship and the said relationship is not acceptable to respondents No.4 to 7 and they are threatening the petitioners with dire consequences. The petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondents No.4 to 7 and in this regard, submitted a representation dated

¶16

MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.09 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶17

CRWP-3625-2025 2

¶18

25.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondents No.2 and 3 as well as to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, but no action has been taken so far.

¶19

Notice of motion to the official respondents only.

¶20

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the official respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply a copy of complete paper book to learned State counsel during course of the day.

¶21

Without commenting on the relationship of the petitioners and entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of this petition with direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and grant them protection, if there is any threat to their life and liberty in accordance with law.

¶22

It is made clear that this order shall not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any committed by them.

¶23

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

09.04.2025 yakub

¶26

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

¶27

MOHD YAKUB 2025.04.09 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Joginder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Haryana

Divanshu and Another Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohammad Salman Vs State of Haryana

Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kala Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab