Ruma @ Roomi & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jan 2011
- Bench
- DAYA CHAUDHARY
Outcome
Disposed of
well as State, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Present:- Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners, namely, Ruma @ Roomi and Dashrath for issuing directions to protect their lives and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage contrary to the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1. Notice of motion was issued on 5.1.2011 and while issuing notice of motion, direction was also issued that no case relating to the marriage of the petitioners including rape and kidnapping be registered against the petitioners during the pendency of this petition. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed and the same is on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-38468 of 2010 (2) Learned counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from ASI Om Parkash submits that statement of petitioner No.1 was recorded, wherein, she has stated that she has solemnized marriage as per her own sweet will and there was no pressure upon her and now she is residing with petitioner No.2 and is leading happy marriage life. Learned counsel further submits that the age of petitioner No.1 was also verified and she is 18 years of age. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners are not residing in the area of Kaithal and they are residing in District Hissar and no complaint with regard to any threat perception has been made to the police authorities. In view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioners as well as State, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in case any threat is there, the petitioners may make a representation to the concerned authorities and after receiving the representation of the petitioners, the same would be considered and necessary action would be taken accordingly. Disposed of accordingly. January 28, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: well as State, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Jan 2011. The bench was DAYA CHAUDHARY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.