- (1.) APPLICATION is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Criminal Misc. No.M-14001 of 2012
(2.) BOTH the petitiones are present in the Court and are identified by their counsel. The petitioners seek protection to their life and liberty. They have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') alleging that they being of marriageable age, got married with each other. The petitioners claim that their marriage is legal. The private respondents are not accepting the marriage of the petitioners alleging it to be against the social norms. The petitioners tried to persuade their parents and relatives but remained unsuccessful in their endeavour. The private respondents, it is alleged, are hell-bent to separate the petitioners from each other by resorting to illegal Criminal Misc. M-No.14001 of 2012 (O&M) 2 means. Thus, it has been pleaded that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their life and liberty from the private respondent. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon Annexures P-1 and P-2 submits that both the petitioners are major. However, there is no definite proof of age of petitioner No. 1 available on the record except her own affidavit Anneuxre P-1. They have married each other of their own free will but against the wishes of private respondents. Photographs of the marriage are appended as Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent No.4 to 8 and, representation dated 7.5.2012 (Annexure P-5) was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, respondent No.2 and S.H.O., P.S., Sadar, Ropar-respondent No.3, but no action thereon has been taken so far. In view of the non-availability of even a prima facie proof of the age of petitioner No.1 but to secure the ends of justice, petitioners are directed to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall consider the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 7.5.2012, after verifying the age of petitioner No.1 and shall pass an appropriate order, as warranted by law, so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondent No.4 to 8. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar-respondent No.2 shall also be at liberty to pass the order granting protection to the petitioners even during the pendency of the enquiry regarding the verification of age of petitioner No.1, in case he is satisfied that there is imminent danger to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
(3.) HOWEVER, lest this order is misunderstood, it is clarified that this Criminal Misc. M-No.14001 of 2012 (O&M) 3 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.;