Disposed

Savita Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2023CRLW/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection for petitioners facing threats from relatives due to a live-in relationship. No specific threat was pleaded; the Court directed petitioners to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police for considering necessary action. The order explicitly did not validate the relationship.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police for consideration of necessary protection measures.

Savita Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 305/2023

¶3

Savita Devi W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Nihalpura, Bhandari, District Dausa (Raj). Presently Resident Of Bhandari, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶4

Raju Lal Saini Son Of Shri Mohanlal , Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Bhandari, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj). Presently Resident Of Bhandari, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Dausa.

¶9

Sho Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa.

¶10

Rajesh Saini Son Of Shri Ramjilal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Nihalpura, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶11

Banwari Saini Son Of Ramjilal Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Nihalpura, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶12

Kamlesh Saini Son Of Unknown, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Nihalpura, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶13

Devi Sahay Saini Son Of Pavan Kumar Saini, Resident Of Nandera, Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (Raj).

¶14

Chhotelal Saini Son Of Devi Sahay, Resident Of Nandera, Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (Raj).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyadarshini Ojha for Mr. Ravi Kumar Sharma

¶17

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

05/04/2023

[CRLW-305/2023]

(2 of 3)

The petitioners have preferred the present misc. petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India 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 respondents.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are above 18 years of age and are in a live-inrelationship. But such relationship is not acceptable to their family members/society and they have threatened them of dire consequences.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners prays that adequate police protection be provided to them.

¶26

Although no specific instance or imminent threat has been pleaded, 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 an appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Dausa indicating their concern with the names of probable assailants.

¶27

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

¶28

It is hereby clarified that this order may not be construed to be a validation of petitioners’ live-in relationship and proof of their age. Any observation made herein shall not affect any criminal or

¶29

[CRLW-305/2023]

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners, at the instance of their relatives.

¶32

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

¶33

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶35

CHHAYA AWASTHI /46

Savita Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar, 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

Nitu Choudhary W/O Sh. Nishant Choudhary D/O Ishwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Neetu Badsara Wife of Shri Maneesh D/O Mr. Shyopal Badsara, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmum Rebari D/O Kalu Ram Rebari, W/O Bhag Chand, Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhe Shyam Jangid S/O Shri Harnath Jangid, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmveer Son of Harkhyal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Shankar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P