Petitioners sought police protection and safeguards against potential coercive action by relatives. The court directed them to file a representation with the Superintendent of Police rather than exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for immediate protection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 987 / 2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, Public Prosecutor Present in person : Ms. Komal Kumari Meena – petitioner No.1 Mr. Mukesh Sharma – petitioner No.2 _____________________________________________________
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-987/2018]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
22/03/2018
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioners that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to provide police protection to the petitioners and if any FIR is lodged against the petitioners by the respondent No.7 to 10, the official respondents be directed to give notice to the petitioners before taking any action on the said FIR and they be further restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners.
Any other order which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are major and as per their own will, they have married to each other but the family members of the petitioner No.1 are annoyed with their marriage and have threatened them with dire consequences, therefore, adequate police protection be provided to the petitioners.
After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners are having any apprehension regarding their lives and liberty from the relatives of the petitioner No.1, they may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara narrating their grievance. It is expected that if any such representation is moved on behalf of the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara shall consider the same and after
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-987/2018]
analysing the threat perception, if required so, may pass necessary orders.
It is made clear that this order is not a proof of age and the marriage of the petitioners and any observations made in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the instances of their relatives.
With these observations this criminal misc. petition is
disposed of.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
Abhishek Kumar S.S.No.1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Komal Kumari Meena
Mukesh Sharma
State of Rajasthan
Kamlesh Meena
Parwati Meena
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
