Dismissed

Smt. Ankita Awasthi W/O Shri Khem Chand Gupta D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Awasthi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2021CRLMP/7/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought police protection for petitioners claiming threats to their life and liberty due to family opposition to their marriage. The court cited Supreme Court precedents affirming liberty of major individuals to choose partners. It directed the police to treat the petition as a complaint and take preventive measures without commenting on the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to treat the petition as a complaint and take preventive measures to ensure safety of petitioners after due enquiry.

Smt. Ankita Awasthi W/O Shri Khem Chand Gupta D/O… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7/2021

¶3

Smt. Ankita Awasthi W/o Shri Khem Chand Gupta D/o Shri Vinod Kumar Awasthi, Aged About 24 Years, R/o J 1/97 Aadarsh Nagar Barra, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh Plot No. 18/25 Flat No. G-4, Vinayak Apartment Ayodhya Nagar, Gandhi Path Jaipur Raj.

¶4

Khem Chand Gupta S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Pattal Dona Wali Gali Gangapur Sawai Madhopur Raj. At Present Residing At Plot No. 18/25 Flat No. G-4, Vinayak Apartment Ayodhya Nagar, Gandhi Path Jaipur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

The Commissioner Of Police Jaipur, Raj.

¶9

Station House Officer, Police Station Karni Vihar Jaipur, Raj.

¶10

Ashish Avasthi S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Awasthi, R/o J 1/97 Aadarsh Nagar Barra, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chaudhary, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

07/01/2021

¶16

This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for protection of life and personal liberty of the petitioners.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and have performed marriage with each

¶19

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-7/2021]

¶20

other and their marriage is registered, but the private respondent and others are not happy with their marriage and they are threatening the petitioners. Given that their life and liberty is in danger, police protection may be granted to them.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions may be issued. 5. In view of the order intended to be passed in the petition, being non-prejudicial to the private respondent, no notice is required against him.

¶22

Heard. Considered.

¶23

It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP [AIR 2006 SC 2522], S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600], Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755] and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM & Ors. [(2018) 16 SCC 368] that the society cannot determine how individuals live their lives, especially when they are major, irrespective of the fact that the relation between two major individuals may be termed as unsocial. Thus, life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.

¶24

Therefore, in light of above legal position and having regard to the above submissions but without expressing any opinion on the genuineness or correctness of the allegations made by the petitioners, this petition is disposed of with the direction that learned counsel for the petitioners shall send a copy of the petition along with its annexures to the Station House Officer of concerned

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-7/2021]

¶26

Police Station through e-mail, and on receipt of the same, the Station House Officer concerned shall treat it as a complaint and after due enquiry, he shall take necessary preventive measures and other steps to ensure safety and security of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶27

However, as a precautionary note, it is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of civil/criminal case, if any, and such case would take its own course as per law.

¶28

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J

¶29

FAHEEM AHMAD /5

Smt. Ankita Awasthi W/O Shri Khem Chand Gupta D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Awasthi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ankita Awasthi W/O Shri Khem Chand Gupta D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Awasthi v. State of Rajasthan

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

Priyanka Saini W/O Sh. Sunil Kumar D/O Mahender Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Aakansha Agarwal Daughter of Shri Anil Agarwal, Wife of Shri Abhishek Kaushik Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Sundar S/O Late Shri Shantipriya B/C Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sambhav Rajan S/O Shri Chandra Praksh Rajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ritu Rathi W/O Upendra Mathur D/O Jagveer Rathi Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi D/O Shri Hari Singh W/O Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan