Disposed

Gawinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CRWP/11148/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking writ of mandamus for protection from private respondents due to threats following a marriage against wishes. Court directed Senior Superintendent of Police to investigate the threat and ensure safety without opining on marriage validity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to look into the complaint dated 10.09.2026 and take appropriate action to ensure no harm is caused to the petitioners.

Gawinder Singh and Anr. Vs Sta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRWP-11148-2026

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

145 CRWP-11148-2026 Date of decision : 11.09.2026

¶5

GAWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶6

... PETITIONERS

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶9

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

¶10

Present:Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

¶13

This petition has been preferred by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus , directing the official respondents No.1 to 3 to protect their life and liberty as they apprehend danger from private respondents No.4 to 6. It is stated in the petition that petitioners have performed their marriage, which is against the will of private respondents and they have an apprehension that the private respondent might cause physical harm to them.

¶14

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/complaint dated 10.09.2026(Annexure P-7) was also made to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, wherein a mention has been made about the alleged threat perception. Learned counsel submits that despite the official

¶15

respondents having been communicated about the alleged threat perception, no

¶16

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.11 16.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRWP-11148-2026 -2-

¶18

steps have been taken to come to the rescue of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that he would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.2Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to look into their representation/complaint dated 10.09.2026(Annexure P-7) and take appropriate steps at the earliest.

¶19

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only at this stage.

¶20

At the asking of the Court, Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

¶21

Keeping in view the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of “Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another”, JT 2006 (6) SC 173 , the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to look into the representation/complaint dated 10.09.2026(Annexure P-7) 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

September 11, 2026 Sonia

¶24

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

¶25

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.11 16.49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gawinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gawinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases