Virendra Singh, J. - (1.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned standing counsel appears for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent no. 4 and 5 are the brothers of petitioner no.1.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioners, claiming to be of major and of marriageable age and entered into marriage with their consent, have prayed for directions to the respondents as well as their relatives arrayed as private respondent and the police not to take any action against the petitioners. They have further prayed that the police should not arrest them during the pendency of the writ petition. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition, allegedly giving cause of action to the petitioners, are quoted as below:- "11. That the grievance of the petitioners is that since the aforesaid marriage is disliked by the respondent no. 4 and 5, hence he along with his associates is regularly trying to eliminate the petitioners and also threatening them for false implicated in criminal case only due to cross relation marriage of the petitioners. 12. That the respondent no. 4 and 5 have political approach and with connivance of respondent no. 3 he had tired to forcible brought of the petitioner no. 1 from the house of petitioner no.2. 13. That the initially of the respondent no.4 and 5 (brother of petitioner no. 1) are not good and they always trying to brought petitioner no. 1 in his custody with the help of criminal elements. They have also give dire consequence and threat to the petitioners. 14. That against the illegal activities of respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 the petitioner jointly moved an application on 20.4.2009 before the respondent no. 2 for giving protection from the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 but the S.P. Hathras had also not paid any attention and head of the petitioners. " The petitioners have relied upon Lata Singh vs. State of UP AIR 2006 SC 2522 in support of their submission, that there is no law prohibiting inter-caste marriage or marriage between the boy and the girl of a different religions. At best the family may socially avoid them, but that they cannot be subjected to harassment, torture and intervention in their life by police.
(3.) IN Lata Singh's case a first information report was lodged against the boy and the girl and that the brothers of Lata Singh had beaten up all the family members, cut away the crops and locked the boy's shop. Lata Singh had appeared before the State Women Commission in Rajasthan and had also recorded her statement before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court had, in such circumstances, quashed the prosecution and had directed that the parents of the boy and the girl and the police shall not interfere in their married life. If the petitioners are of marriageable age and have married with their consent, there is no reason as to why the police would register a criminal case and to prosecute them.;