CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Komal and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 September 2012 · Citation: (2012) 09 P&H CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Daya Chaudhary, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-28451 of 2012 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 176 words

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners as they have solemnized marriage contrary to the wishes of private respondents and are apprehending threat at their instance. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have also moved a representation (Annexure P-5) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, S.A.S. Nagar for protection but no action has been taken thereon.

2.

Notice of motion.

3.

On the asking of the Court, notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D.A.G., Punjab.

4.

However, without commenting anything on the merits of the case and in view of the submission made by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, S.A.S. Nagar-respondent No.2 to look into the representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioners and if found necessary, take appropriate steps in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. Disposed of accordingly.