OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6692-2024 Date of Decision: July 16 & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ......Respondents Present: Mr.Sunpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr.Akun Sheemar, Advocate for the petitioners. ........ RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents no.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents no.4 to 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that both the petitioners are major and have married against the wishes of respondents no.4 to 7 and have sought protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents no.4 to 7. Their marriage certificate and photographs evidencing their marriage are on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4. The petitioners have submitted a representation, dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) to respondent no.2. Notice of motion to respondents no.1 to 3-State only. On the asking of the Court, Mr.Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the MEENU 2024.07.17 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6692-2024 respondents/State. -2- Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with a direction to respondent no.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar (Mohali) to decide the representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is clarified that this order shall not be taken to grant immunity to the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any, committed by them. This order would not be understood having expressed any opinion whatsoever by this Court on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners. Disposed of July 16, 2024 meenuss 1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? 2. Whether reportable ? ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MEENU 2024.07.17 12:35 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 16 Jul 2024. The bench was RAJESH BHARDWA.
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.