Neha Rana and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Criminal Misc. No. 4680 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

Criminal Misc. M-No. 2161 of 2012

The petitioners seek protection to their life and liberty. They have filed the instant petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short ''Cr.P.C.'') alleging that they being of marriageable age, got married with each other. The petitioners claim that their marriage is legal. The

private respondents are not accepting the marriage of the petitioners alleging it to be against the social norms. The petitioners tried to persuade their

parents and relatives but remained unsuccessful in their endeavour. The private respondents, it is alleged, are hell-bent to separate the petitioners

from each other by resorting to illegal means. Thus, it has been pleaded that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their life and

liberty from the private respondents. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach

this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are major in terms of the documents appended as Annexures P-1 and P-

They have married each other of their own free will. Photographs of the marriage are appended as Annexure P-3. Learned Counsel for the

petitioners further submits that the petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No.4 and 5.

The issue involved in the present case is a short one, that is to say, seeking only the protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. This issue,

in fact, is no more res-integra. The law, in this regard, has been laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, in a catena of judgments

including in the cases of A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras, Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Lata Singh versus State of UP & anr.

2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 870, which has been followed by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar Singh versus State of Haryana 2008 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 376.

It is pertinent to note here that about three decades after A.K.Gopalan''s case (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court further widened the scope of

Article 21, in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, thereby widening the scope of the law laid down in the

A.K.Gopalan''s case (supra). Thereafter, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in long series of subsequent decisions, went on to explore the true meaning

of the word ""Life"" in Article 21 and the recent one was rendered by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. The

Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others,

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and with his able assistance, have gone through the record of the case.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant one is

a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, protects the most precious right of every

citizen, it being the Right to life. In view of the constitutional mandate and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of

A.K.Gopalan, Maneka Gandhi, Kartar Singh and Lata Singh (supra) followed by this Court in many cases including Pardeep Kumar Singh''s case

(supra), the petitioners are entitled to seek the protection to their life and liberty.

It is also equally important to note that freedom of the individual is not absolute but subject to the established and time tested social norms of a

civilised society. Co-existence of freedom of the individual and social control is sine-qua-non for the sustainable progress of the society and this is

also the integral part of our constitutional philosophy. Therefore, though the petitioners are entitled for protection to their life and liberty in the given

facts and circumstances of the present case but at the same time, it is also expected from them and other young citizens like them that before

running away from their homes for performing this type of ''rebellion marriage'', they must think twice, besides, listening carefully to their respective

parents who are not their enemies but real well wisher. Let us welcome the dynamic social change and evolution but only subject to the social

control and moral values which are centuries old and have not lost their shine even today.

Under the circumstances of the case noted above coupled with the reasons, aforementioned, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jind-respondent

No.2, is directed to look into the threat perception, as and when raised by the petitioners by moving the appropriate representation,

dispassionately and expeditiously, passing appropriate orders thereon, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and

liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No.4 and 5.

However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this order shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as

required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. I say so

because neither it is the issue involved in the present petition nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the

petitioners. In fact, it is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction, to decide the validity of the marriage and that too on the

basis of the pleadings taken and the evidence led by the parties in the given circumstances of each case.

It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal

proceedings, if they are found involved in the commission of any cognizable offence. In case the petitioners had committed any offence, the law will

take its own course.

With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of.