Disposed¶22

Muskan and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2025CRWP/3717/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRWP-3717-2025 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Justice Harpreet Singh Brar; Article 226 writ of mandamus; live-in relationship; protection of life and liberty; major petitioners; threat from respondents No.4 to 13; representation dated 05.04.2025 Annexure P-3; State of Haryana; DAG Geeta Sharma; counsel Munfaid Khan; one-week deadline; no shield from legal action for violation of law.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to decide the petitioners' representation dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) within one week from receipt of a certified copy of the order and to grant them protection if there is any threat to their life and liberty. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who claim to be majors living in a live-in relationship against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 13 and apprehend danger from them, are entitled to a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the relationship between the petitioners or evaluating the evidentiary value of the documents placed on file, the Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-3) within one week from receipt of a certified copy of the order and to grant them protection if there is any threat to their life and liberty.

¶22

Key takeaways

The protection ordered shall not shield the petitioners from legal action for any violation of law committed by them.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral single-judge order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Harpreet Singh Brar, J.), 11.04.2025, disposing of CRWP-3717-2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioners 'Muskan and another'. They claimed to be majors in a live-in relationship against the wishes of private respondents No.4 to 13, apprehending danger, and sought protection of life and liberty after their representation dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2 went unactioned. Without commenting on the relationship or evaluating the evidentiary value of the documents, the Court directed respondent No.2 to decide the representation within one week of receipt of a certified copy of the order and to grant protection if any threat existed; the order expressly does not protect the petitioners from legal action for any violation of law committed by them.

CRWP-3717-2025

-1-

108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRWP-3717-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.04.2025

¶6

Muskan and another

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶12

Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the petitioners ( through video conferencing ).

¶13

¶14

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶15

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.2 & 3 to protect the life and liberty of petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 to 13.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are living in live-in relationship against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 13 and they claim themselves to be major and seek protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 13. The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) to

¶17

VISHNU 2025.04.11 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

CRWP-3717-2025 -2-

¶19

respondent No.2 but no action has been taken so far.

¶20

Notice of motion to the official respondents only.

¶21

Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, 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.

¶22

Without commenting anything on the relationship between 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 representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and grant them protection, if there is any threat to their life and liberty.

¶23

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.

¶24

11.04.2025 vishnu

¶25

[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ] JUDGE

¶26

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

¶27

VISHNU 2025.04.11 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Muskan and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muskan and Another v. State of Haryana 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

Mohammad Salman Vs State of Haryana

Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kala Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Neha Rani and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Neha and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amninder Singh @ Hani Vs State of Punjab