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
9 paragraphs · 255 wordsDaya Chaudhary, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 23942 of 2011
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13317 of 2011
The present petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of Sumeet Kaur and Jaswinder Singh for issuing directions to the official Respondents to protect their lives and liberty as they have solemnized their marriage contrary to the wishes of private Respondents.
Both the Petitioners are present in Court and claim themselves to be major on the basis of documents annexed with the petition and they are apprehending threats at the instance of private Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have moved a representation (Annexure P-5) to Respondent No. 2 i.e. SSP, Patiala but no action has been taken. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners would be satisfied if the representation filed by them is decided within some specified period and moreover, there is no legal impediments in issuing such directions.
Without commenting anything on the merits of the case as well validity and age of the Petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2-SSP, Patiala to look into the representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the Petitioners and after verifying the factual position with regard to their age, marriage and apprehension at the instance of private Respondents, if he comes to the conclusion that a serious threat is there, then necessary protection be provided as per law.
Disposed of accordingly.