High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 11 P&H CK 0030

Komal and another vs State of Haryana and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 November 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
44627-2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 355 words
1.

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, having married each other

against the wishes of their respective family members respondent Nos.4 to

7, and so seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They submitted a

representation (Annexure P-7) in this regard to the Superintendent of Police,

Panipat on 21.11.2017, 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 (Annexures P-3 to P-6) 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 Superintendent of Police, Panipat is directed to

consider the representation dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure P-7) 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 Aadhaar Cards. 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

(Annexures P-3 to P-6). 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.