High CourtsSingle Bench

Ruhi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Other

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 P&H CK 0377

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 6795 Of 2026 (O&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

10 paragraphs · 395 words

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J

1.

The petitioners have filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect life and liberty of petitioners from the hands of private respondents No.4 to 10 and not to interfere in their personal life and liberty.

2.

It is submitted that both the petitioners are major. As per copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1 (Annexure P-2), her date of birth is 10.04.1998. On the other hand, as per copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2 (Annexure P-3), his date of birth is 01.09.2002. They had performed marriage on 02.06.2026. Copy of Certificate of Marriage is annexed as Annexure P-1 and photographs regarding performing of their marriage are annexed as Annexure P-6. Petitioners also moved representations dated 03.06.2026 to the Commissionerate of Police, DAC, Complex, Jalandhar, Punjab (Annexure P-4) and the Station House Officer, Police Station Division No.1, Industrial Area, Jalandhar, Punjab, (Annexures P-5). Petitioners had performed marriage without consent and wishes of family members/relatives of petitioner No.1 and as such, they are receiving threats from respondents No.4 to 10.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On advance notice, Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, Assistant A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply a complete copy of paper-book to learned State counsel during the course of the day.

6.

Considering nature of litigation, no purpose would be served by serving notice to private respondents.

7.

I have considered the facts narrated in petition, according to which both the petitioners are major and they have performed marriage against wishes of family members/relatives of petitioner No.1, as a result they are apprehending threats from the hand of respondents No.4 to 9. It is the duty of police to protect life and liberty of petitioners. Therefore, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to consider representations of the petitioners dated 03.06.2026 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) and protect life and liberty of petitioners from the hands of respondents No.4 to 10, considering threat perception, with further direction to maintain their privacy and dignity.

8.

Aforesaid protection order will have no bearing on legality and validity of marriage and it will not protect them in case there is any violation of law or pending legal proceedings.

9.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.