Disposed

Monika Goswami D/O Shri Ramkalyan Goswami, W/O Shri Sunil Kumar Saini, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2025CRLW/1611/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A married couple sought police protection alleging threat to life and liberty from private respondents. The court noted their prior representations and directed the authorities to consider the representations in terms of earlier directions in Suman Meena and provide protection if warranted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Monika Goswami D/O Shri Ramkalyan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49851]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1611/2025

¶4

Monika Goswami D/o Shri Ramkalyan Goswami, W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Saini, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Maliyo Ki Dhani, Peeplie Tehsil Thanagaji, Alwar District Alwar.

¶5

Sunil Kumar Saini S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Peeplie Tehsil Thanagaji, Alwar District Alwar.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police ( Rural), Alwar District Alwar.

¶10

The Station House Officer ( Sho), Police Station Pratapgarh, District Alwar.

¶11

Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Jagdish Prasad Saini, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Peeplie Tehsil Thanagaji District Alwar.

¶12

Shyama W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Saini, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Peeplie Tehsil Thanagaji District Alwar.

¶13

Sushila W/o Shri Krishan Kumar Saini, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Peeplie Tehsil Thanagaji District Alwar.

¶14

Choti Devi W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Saini, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Peeplie Tehsil Thanagaji District Alwar.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Govind Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Choudhary,PP

¶17

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶18

Order

¶19

08/12/2025

¶20

Defect(s) pointed out by the Office stands waived.

¶21

The petitoners have preferred this petition for issuance of necessary directions to the official-respondents to provide adequate

[2025:RJ-JP:49851]

[CRLW-1611/2025]

(2 of 3)

security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s).

¶26

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of fundamental rights and any threat to the same amounts to violation of the same.

¶27

The contents of the petition indicate that both the petitioners are of major age and they have solemnized marriage with each other on 11.11.2024, and their marriage has been registered by the competent authority as well. A certificate in this regard has also been issued and life and liberty of the petitioners are stated to be at stake at the hands of the private respondents and prior to approaching this Court, the petitioners had already submitted representations before the Nodal Officer/Superintendent of Police, Jaipur and the concerned Station House Officer, pursuant to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024 , but no heed has been paid, hence, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶28

It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to procedure

[2025:RJ-JP:49851]

[CRLW-1611/2025]

(3 of 3)

established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.

¶33

Looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer as well as concerned Station House Officer, it is expected from the officers concerned to look into the matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Suman Meena (supra) and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.

¶34

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

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶37

Karan/249

Monika Goswami D/O Shri Ramkalyan Goswami, W/O Shri Sunil Kumar Saini, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Monika Goswami D/O Shri Ramkalyan Goswami, W/O Shri Sunil Kumar Saini, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Nivesh Lal S/O Dr. Rakesh Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Mustak S/O Allarakha, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prem Sagar S/O Sobagh Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Karan Export Vs Shri Trilok Chand Gupta S/O Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta

Dharm Singh Son of Mangilal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Sh. Gopiram, Vs State of Rajasthan