Disposed

Reena Jain D/O Shri Babulal Jain W/O Shri Hukam Chand Jain, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CRLW/497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special criminal writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of a petition seeking police protection and security against life-threatening threats from private respondents. The bench declined to examine the validity of the petitioners' relationship but issued directions to the Nodal Officer to protect their life and liberty under Article 21 based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to approach the concerned Nodal Officer for grievance ventilation and directions to the Nodal Officer to ensure safety and protection.

Reena Jain D/O Shri Babulal Jain W/O… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12868]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 497/2024

¶4

Reena Jain D/o Shri Babulal Jain W/o Shri Hukam Chand Jain, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 238, Lahsoda, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur, Presently R/o 1/84, Housing Board, Alanpur, Sawai Madhopur.

¶5

Hukam Chand Jain S/o Shri Shubhkaran Jain, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 1/84, Housing Board, Alanpur, Sawai Madhopur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, And Justice, Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

Kamal Chand Jain S/o Surajmal Jain, R/o Mahaveer Nagar Second, Behind Shakti Palace Graden, Alanpur, Sawai Madhopur.

¶12

Manbhar Jain W/o Shri Kamal Chand Jain, R/o Mahaveer Nagar Second, Behind Shakti Palace Graden, Alanpur, Sawai Madhopur.

¶13

Ramdhan Jain S/o Phool Chand Jain, R/o Uklana Road, Aligarh, District Tonk.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma for Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶17

Order

¶18

14/03/2024

¶19

Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing

¶20

(2 of 3) [CRLW-497/2024]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:12868]

¶22

grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.

¶23

Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners in order to live happily and peacefully are seeking protection qua private respondents, who are not happy with the relationship of petitioners.

¶24

Pursuant the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India [(2018)10 SCC 1 ] and of this court in Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 4-1-2019 , the State Government through Director General of Police issued a Circular dated 18-1-2019 and appointed Nodel Officer at every Police Station in the state of Rajasthan for ventilation of grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate protection. Life and liberty is fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law. 4. Similar to the married couple, petitioners, who are major and willingly living in relationship, without entering into marriage, also cannot be denied protection of their life and liberty since it is fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been observed by this Apex Court in case of S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600 ] and

¶25

Joseph Shine v. Union of India [(2019)3 SCC 39 ]. Thus, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:12868]

[CRLW-497/2024]

In view of above, however, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not inclined to enter into examining the validity of marriage/ legality of relationship of parties, therefore does not render any affirmation of legality and validity of the status of parties under which they are living together, but keeping in mind the proposition of law set forth by the Apex Court in catena of judgments and in order to protect fundamental rights of parties for their life and liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.

¶30

In case petitioners move any application, it is expected from the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action for not allowing to illegally hinder in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners by private respondents, who are not agreeable to the relationship of petitioners, but after verifying the fact, if required.

¶31

However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the

¶32

civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.

¶33

Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

TN/40

Reena Jain D/O Shri Babulal Jain W/O Shri Hukam Chand Jain, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Jain D/O Shri Babulal Jain W/O Shri Hukam Chand Jain, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Chouhan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Jain Son of Late Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Priyanka D/O Late Shri Santram W/O Jitendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Paras Son of Shri Gurjarmal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Meena S/O Rameshchand Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Islam S/O Narsi, Vs State of Rajasthan