SANJEEV & Anr. v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
their age, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. A.S. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) ****
#1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 so as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.
#2. As per contents made in the petition along with the documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and are stated to be in a “Live-in Relationship”.
#4. Notice of motion. Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.
#5. It has been contended that petitioner No.2 is in live-in- relationship out of her own free wish and will and without there being any threat at the hands of petitioner No.1. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are having continuous threat at the hands of respondent No.4 to 7 and in this regard they have already submitted TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.01.05 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-62-2024 (O&M) -2- representation dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2- Commissioner of Police, Panchkula. It has also been contended that despite there being a continuous threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, at the hands of private respondents, the official respondents have failed to take any action in this regard.
#6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon two decisions rendered by this Court in the case of “Shilpa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others” passed in CRWP-10101-2021 on
22.10.2021 and “Pardeep Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana” passed in CRWP No.4521 of 2021 (O&M) on 18.05.2021. The relevant paragraph No.6 from Pardeep Singh and another's case (supra) is reproduced as under for reference:- “6. Let us examine the issue from another view-point. The Constitutional Courts grant protection couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exits where the couple has entered into a live-in- relationship. The only difference relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.” TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.01.05 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-62-2024 (O&M) -3-
#7. Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and without expressing any opinion upon the relationship being maintained by the petitioners, however, considering their age, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Panchkula to consider the representation dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) and assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, pass necessary directions to officer concerned in this regard.
#8. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
#9. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State from proceedings against the petitioners, if involved in any other case.
#10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
05.01.2024 tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.01.05 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: their age, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 Jan 2024. The bench was HARKESH MANUJA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.