Disposed

Kanta Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2023CRLW/1357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought police protection due to threats over their live-in relationship. The Court refused specific directions, stating petitioners must submit a formal representation to the Superintendent of Police detailing threats before protection is granted. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; directed petitioners to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police seeking protection.

Kanta Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1357/2023

¶3

Kanta Devi D/o Budh Ram Sihag, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. A-4, Sihago Ka Mohalla, Malwani 1 Knn, Pehephana, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶4

Sandeep Singh S/o Sh. Jorawar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Nyolkhi Chak, Nyolakhi Barani, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.

¶9

Sho, Police Station Pehephana District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GS Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

14/08/2023

¶15

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for issuance of necessary directions to the respondent authorities to provide adequate security and protection to them, as they are facing grave threat to their 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 are in a live-in-relationship. But such relationship is not acceptable to their family members/society and they have threatened them of dire consequences.

¶17

[CRLW-1357/2023]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

He prays that adequate police protection be provided to them.

¶20

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 concerned Superintendent of Police indicating their concern with the name(s) of probable assailants.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶25

507-Bharti/-

Kanta Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Parihar Vs State of Rajasthan

Moola Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Muskan Vs State of Rajasthan

Durga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramchandra Binda Vs State of Rajasthan