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 is the father 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. In paragraphs 12 to 17 it is stated that the family of petitioner no. 2 is ready to have petitioner no. 1 as their daughter-in-law and they have no objection to the marriage. The respondent no. 4, however, is putting pressure and is threatening to kill petitioner no. 2. It is stated that although no first information report has been lodged, the respondent no. 4 is trying to catch petitioners and to kill petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 is receiving threats from respondent nos. 3 and 4. It is also stated that respondent no. 4 may, with the help of respondent no. 3, torture and humiliate the petitioners. The respondent no. 4 is a wealthy and political figure and will not permit the peaceful living 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'se 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.;