Dismissed

Smt. Sunita Mehra and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Mar 2018CRLMP/994/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection for petitioners married against family wishes, who claimed a false abduction FIR was lodged. The Court directed petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police separately with threat perceptions rather than exercising curative jurisdiction under Section 482.

What did the court decide?

Directions were issued to petitioners to file a representation before the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, for considering protection orders.

Smt. Sunita Mehra and Anr. Vs State and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 994 / 2018

¶3

Smt. Sunita Mehra D/o Pappu Lal Mehra W/o Vipin Khichi, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Bairva, Resident of C-22, Jhalana Dungari, Phase-III, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶4

Vipin Khichi S/o Om Prakash Khichi, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Sain, R/o 1-B-426, Kudi Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

The Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

The S.H.O., Police Station- Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶10

The Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶11

The S.H.O., Police Station- Kuri Housing Board, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶12

Pappu Lal Mehra S/o Mool Chand Bairva, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Bairva, R/o C-22, Jhalana Dungari, Phase-III, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶13

Smt. Anokh Devi W/o Pappu Lal Mehra, B/c Bairva, R/o C-22, Jhalana Dungari, Phase-III, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sunita Mehra, Mr. Vipin Khichi, petitioners, present in person.

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶18

Judgment / Order

¶19

23/03/2018

¶20

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

¶21

been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :-

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

“Therefore it is humbly and most respectfully prayed that - A. The Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to provide police protection and safety to the petitioners by restraining the family members to cause any danger to the life of the petitioners. B. The respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to record the statements of the petitioners, in the situation of any complaint in freely atmosphere. C. Any other appropriate order or direction which is favourable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners.“

¶24

It is averred in this criminal misc. petition that both the petitioners are major and as per their own free will have married to each other but the family members of the petitioner No.1 are annoyed with their marriage and had threatened them with dire consequences, therefore, adequate police protection be provided to them.

¶25

It is stated by the petitioners that they have come to know that the father of the petitioner No.1 has lodged a missing persons report and an FIR at Jaipur alleging that the petitioner No.2 has abducted his daughter. The petitioners have stated that the missing persons report and the FIR lodged at Jaipur are false.

¶26

This Court is of the opinion that if there is any missing persons report or an FIR has been lodged with the police, the police has every right to investigate into the allegations levelled in the said reports.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

The petitioners are free to appear before the police at Jaipur to put their case that the petitioner No.1 has not been abducted by the petitioner No.2 and she is residing with him on her own free will after marrying him.

¶29

If the petitioners have any apprehension regarding their life, liberty and security, they may file appropriate representation before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.

¶30

If any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur shall consider the same and after analysing the threat perceptions, if required so, may pass necessary orders.

¶31

It is made clear that this order is not a proof of age and the marriage of the petitioners and any observations in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the instances of their relatives.

¶32

With these observations, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶33

Ms rathore

Smt. Sunita Mehra and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Mehra and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Chandani Vs State and Anr.

Smt Komal Kumari Meena and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Vivek Mittal Vs State and Anr.

Narayan Singh Vs State

Shravan Singh Vs State

Gurcharan Singh Vs State and Anr.