Lovepreet Kaur & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 May 2024
- Bench
- SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the statements of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.4, the petition is devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: None for the petitioners Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab --- SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents No.4 to 7 and not to harass them at the behest of private respondents. Further, direction has been sought to the private respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners.
In view of the previous order dated 9.5.2024, status report by way of affidavit of Gurdev Singh, PPS, DSP, Sub-Division Malerkotla, District Malerkotla, has been filed, recording the statement of petitioner no.1 which reads as under: ...That as of now there is no threat to her and her husband’s life at the hands of private respondents.
From perusal of the same and for better appreciation of the sequence of events happening in this case, reproduction of the statement Ashwani Kumar 2024.06.01 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP No.4227 of 2024 -2- of the respondents would also be read as under: …That on 27.4.2024, his daughter Lovepreet Kaur got married to Imran Khan son of Mohammad Bashir, resident of Sarhandi Gate, mohalla Baghwala, Malerkotla of her own free will. He and his family members i.e. Kuldeep Kaur (mother of petitioner no.1), Mandeep Singh (brother of petitioner no.1) and Randhir Kaur (sister of petitioner no.1) have no objection to the decision of petitioner no.1 and they will not interfere their personal life. His daughter is an adult and she can live anywhere she wants.”
In the light of above, it is evidently clear that there is no threat perception to the petitioners in the present case.
In view of the statements of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.4, the petition is devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
No order as to costs. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE
29.5.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2024.06.01 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 May 2024. The bench was SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
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.