Disposed

Yukta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2022CRLMP/7438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection under the CrPC against threats from relatives regarding their marriage. The Court directed them to approach the Superintendent of Police with a representation before providing orders, clarified it does not validate the marriage, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to move application for representation to Superintendent of Police; no immediate police protection mandated.

Yukta Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7438/2022

¶3

Yukta Sharma W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Dhanet Kalla Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶4

Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Paras Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Dhanora Post Office Gulana, Begu, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Thana, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶9

Nand Lal Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, R/o Dhanet Kalla, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Birbal Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

10/11/2022

¶15

The petitioners have preferred the present misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of necessary directions to the respondent authorities to provide adequate security and protection to them, as they are facing grave threat of life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are of major age and they solemnized their marriage of

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-7438/2022]

¶19

their own free will. However, their family members are not agreeable to their marriage and have threatened them of dire consequences.

¶20

He prays that adequate police protection be provided to them.

¶21

Though no specific instance or imminent threat has been pleaded but considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners are having any apprehension or threat perception about their life and liberty from their relatives, they may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh indicating their concern with the name(s) of probable assailants.

¶22

If any such representation is moved by the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh shall consider the same and after analysing the factual situation pass necessary orders or take action to ward off any untoward incident.

¶23

It is hereby clarified that this order may not be construed to be a validation of petitioners’ marriage and proof of their age. Any observation made herein shall not affect any criminal or civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners, at the instance of their relatives.

¶24

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

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

272-akansha/-

Yukta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yukta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanwar Ram @ Bhanwarlal Vs State

Binesh @ Banti Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Banna Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Ratan Lal and Ors.

Dherendra and Ors. Vs Nilesh Kumar and Ors.