JUDGEMENT
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. -
(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. No.34963 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
Criminal Misc. No. M-17626 of 2012
Both the petitiones are present in the Court and are identified
by their counsel.
(2.) 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 respondent is 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 respondent, it is alleged, is
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 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 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. Learned
counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite the representation
dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure P-5), having been duly submitted to
respondents No.2 and 3, no action is being taken thereon and the
petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of
private respondent.
(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, AIR 1950
SC 27, Kartar Singh versus State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 and Lata
Singh versus State of UP & anr. 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 870, which has
been followed by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar Singh versus
State of Haryana 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 376.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.