High CourtsSingle Bench

Sarabjit Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 July 2012 · Citation: (2012) 07 P&H CK 0030

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous M- No. 6628 of 2011 (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

18 paragraphs · 410 words

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to

their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have married each other of

their own free will but against the wishes of private respondents. Apprehending danger to their life, the petitioners have approached this Court by

way of instant petition. Notice of motion was issued and reply thereto has been filed by the private respondents as well as by the State. Learned

counsel for the private respondents submits that the petitioners have concealed material facts from this Court and they are not entitled for the relief

claimed by them.

2.

The limited prayer made in the present petition is for protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents. The

present petition is disposed of with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala-respondent No. 2 to look into the threat perception

raised by the petitioners as and when the petitioners approach him in this regard. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 shall pass the appropriate orders in

accordance with law so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.

3.

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.

4.

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.