- (1.) Criminal Misc. No. 33262 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. 1. Both the petitioners are present in person in the Court and 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 means. Thus, it has been pleaded that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their life and liberty from the private respondents. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are major in terms of the documents appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2. They have married each other of their own free will. Photographs of the marriage are appended as Annexure P- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite the representation dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure P-5), having been duly submitted to the S.H.O. Police Station Division No.1, Pathankotrespondent No.3, no action is being taken thereon and the petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
(3.) The issue involved in the present case is a short one, that is to say, seeking only the protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. This issue, in fact, is no more res-integra. The law, in this regard, has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a catena of judgments including in the cases of A.K.Gopalan versus State of Madras, 1950 AIR(SC) 27, Kartar Singh versus State of Punjab, 1994 3 SCC 569 and Lata Singh versus State of UP & anr., 2006 3 RCR(Cri) 870, which has been followed by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar Singh versus State of Haryana, 2008 3 RCR(Cri) 376.;