High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 MP CK 0072

Shivam Balmik & Anr. vs State of M.P. & Ors.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. S. Ahluwalia, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8888 Of 2020

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

43 paragraphs · 447 words

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking protection in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court

in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 on the ground that the petitioners have married on 11.6.2020 in Arya Samaj

Sanstha and a certificate to that effect has also been issued which is Annexure P/3.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact the parents of the petitioner No.2 are extending threat to the life of the petitioner No.1,

therefore, this petition has been filed.

In support of the contention of the petitioners, they have relied upon the application sent by them to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur

(Rajasthan) as well as to SHO, Police Station Ujjain, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) which are Annexure P/5 and P/6 respectively.

Their representation made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur reads as under:-

,

Â

- ।

,     Â

             Â

     18 ,

।Â Â Â

,   , -

-07, 00 11/06/2020 ,

00 ,

, -

        ,

       Â

।Â Â Â

           Â

   ,   -

/

17.6.20

,

, - ( )

-

1.

- ।

2.

Thus the petitioners have prayed that in case if any FIR is lodged, then the police before proceeding further, should record the statement of the

petitioner No.2. The petitioner has not filed any document to indicate that they have ever made any complaint to police authority pointing out any

threat extended by the parents of the petitioner No.2. Even the details of so called threat has not been mentioned in the writ petition. Thus it appears

that the allegations of threat by the parents of the petitioner No.2 are nothing but self imaginary allegations. In fact, by sending the above mentioned

applications, the petitioners had sought a relief from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) that before registering the offence, the

statement of the petitioner No.2 should be recorded. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) does not fall within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners that in case if they so desire then they can file a writ petition before the High Court

of Rajasthan.

With aforesaid liberty, the petition is finally disposed of.