JUDGEMENT
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. -
(1.) BOTH the petitioners are present in the Court and 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 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.
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 27.5.2013 (Annexure P-5), having been duly
submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar-respondent
No.2, 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, 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.