High CourtsSingle Bench

Anju Rani and another vs State of Punjab and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 P&H CK 0136

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M No.14192 of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 361 words

SUDIP AHLUWALIA J. (ORAL)

Both the petitioners are present in person and identified by their counsel. They seek protection of their life and liberty by contending that both of

them having attained the age of majority, have married each other against the wishes of their respective family members respondent Nos.4 to 9, and

so seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They submitted a representation (Annexure P-4) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of

Police, Patiala on 3rd April, 2018, but are still apprehensive about their security in view of the apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family

members-respondents.

2.

Both of them do appear to have crossed the age of majority as seen from the copies of documents filed and have married each other, in support of

which, photographs (Annexure P-3) have been placed on record.

3.

For the aforesaid reasons, this appears to be a fit case for this Court to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and in view

of the mandate contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India to protect the citizen's right to life and liberty.

4.

Thus the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala is directed to consider the representation dated 3rd April, 2018 (Annexure P-4) and take

appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

5.

It is nevertheless clarified that this order is issued only on the premise that the petitioners have crossed the age of majority as seen from the

documents placed on record being their Aadhar Cards (Annexures P-1 and P-2). The petitioners have not produced on record a copy of their

marriage certificate. However, they have appended affidavits in support of their marriage and photographs. This would not ipso facto amount to

granting any seal of approval on the legality of their marriage which essentially would come in the domain of the concerned Matrimonial Courts.

Further, they would not be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be

involved in commission of any cognizable offence(s).

6.

The petition is disposed off with the above direction.