Dismissed

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2023CRLW/1110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by two major individuals in a live-in relationship seeking protection against threats from family members. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to affirm fundamental rights under Article 21 and directed petitioners to approach Superintendent of Police for grievance and potential security.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioners directed to approach Superintendent of Police with representation regarding grievance for security assessment.

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38564]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1110/2023

¶4

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal D/o Sagar Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Agarwal R/o 322 Kallumal Bhawan Hira Lal Lane Raviwar Peth Nashik (Maharashtra) At Present Reside At Ward No. 10 Padihara Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu Raj.

¶5

Chiranjee Lal Agarwal S/o Tola Ram Agarwal, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Agarwal R/o Ward No. 10 Padihara Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs Jaipur Raj.

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, Churu Raj. 3. The S.h.o., Ps Ratangarh Dist. Churu Raj.. 4. Sagar Agarwal S/o Om Prakash Agarwal, B/c Agarwal R/o 322 Kallumal Bhawan Hira Lal Lane Raviwar Peth Nashik Maharashtra

¶10

Om Prakash Agarwal S/o Ganga Ram Agarwal, B/c Agarwal R/o 322 Kallumal Bhawan Hira Lal Lane Raviwar Peth Nashik Maharashtra

¶11

Piyush Agarwal S/o Om Prakash Agarwal, B/c Agarwal R/o 322 Kallumal Bhawan Hira Lal Lane Raviwar Peth Nashik Maharashtra

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Jaidev Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/11/2023

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:38564]

[CRLW-1110/2023]

This Writ Petition has been filed for protection of life and personal liberty of the petitioners.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and they are living in live-in-relationship and in this regard, they have executed an agreement on 01.07.2023, but the private respondents and others are not happy with their relationship and they are threatening the petitioners. Private respondents have no right to harass the petitioners and to take the law in their hands. Given that their life and liberty is in danger, police protection may be granted to them. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Leela v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5045/2021 decided on 15.09.2021) wherein it was held that the right to claim protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is imperative and it cannot be waived off based on moral/legal validity of live-in relationship.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions may be issued.

¶24

In view of the order intended to be passed in the petition, being non-prejudicial to the private respondents, no notices are required against them.

¶25

Heard. Considered.

¶26

It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble

¶27

Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP [AIR

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:38564]

[CRLW-1110/2023]

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 immoral and 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.

¶32

Therefore, in light of above legal position and after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, since the petitioners apprehend threat to their right of life and liberty, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have every right to seek the protection of their life, limb and liberty; and therefore, persuaded to dispose of the present petition with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the concerned Superintendent of Police along with appropriate representation regarding their grievance. The concerned Superintendent of Police shall in turn hear the grievance of the petitioners, and after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.

¶33

(4 of 4) [CRLW-1110/2023]

¶34

[2023:RJ-JD:38564]

¶35

It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶36

With these observations and directions the instant Criminal Writ Petition as well as all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶37

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶38

878-Mamta/-

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal 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

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohanlal Vs State

Rameshwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Narang Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Narang Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gajaro Vs State of Rajasthan