Disposed

Jyoti Arora v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2021CRLMP/6098/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court via Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed Police Superintendent to ensure protection for petitioners threatened due to their intra-family marriage. Court deemed no law-wielding without judicial process and clarified order is not a proof of age.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar to ensure necessary vigil and protection of petitioners' life and liberty if required no harm is caused.

Jyoti Arora Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6098/2021

¶3

Jyoti Arora W/o Shri Sukhjeet Khungar, Aged About 26 Years, D/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o House No. 157, Gali No. 11, Surjeet Singh Colony, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶4

Sukhjeet Khungar S/o Shri Gurbachan Das Khungar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 1/69, Housing Board, Near Hanuman Mandir, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar Through Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶9

Station House Officer, Police Station Jawaharnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶10

Om Prakash S/o Shri Ram Chander Arora, R/o House No. 157, Gali No. 11, Surjeet Singh Colony, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar (Raj.) And Presently Residing At 7673, New Angad Colony, Opposite Prince Studio, Ludhiana (Punjab)

¶11

Saurav Arora S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o 157, Gali No. 11, Surjeet Singh Colony, Tehsil And Disrict Sriganganagar (Raj.) And Presently Residing At 7673, New Angad Colony, Opposite Prince Studio, Ludhiana (Punjab)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Trivedi, PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶15

12/11/2021

¶16

The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of necessary directions to

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-6098/2021]

¶19

the official respondents to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are facing grave threat of life and liberty at the hands of respondent no. 4 and 5 & their family members, in view of solemnization of their marriage with each other on 08.11.2021.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that nobody can be permitted to take law in his own hands merely because marriage is not acceptable. Thus, this Court deems it proper to direct the petitioners to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, who shall hear the grievance of the petitioners and after analysing the threat perceptions, if required so, may pass necessary orders.

¶21

Consequently, the present misc. petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar to ensure necessary vigil that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of those, who are opposed to the marriage.

¶22

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.

¶23

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶24

77-payal/-

Jyoti Arora v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Arora 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Lal Vs State

Sirajudeen Vs State

Parasmal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Hawa Kanwar Vs State

Bhagwan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Chakrawarti Vs State of Rajasthan