MANDEEP KAUR & Anr. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib District Sri Muktsar Sahib to look into the representation/complaint dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) qua the alleged threat perception and take necessary steps…
Judgment
Present: Mr.Lakhan Pal Garg, Advocate for Mr. Aarish Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, who apprehend threat to their life at the hands of private respondents No.4 to 7, who are stated to be family members of petitioner No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1, aged about 19 years but it has been inadvertently mentioned as 24 years and petitioner No.2, aged about 21 years, got married on 20.11.2024 against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 7. Ever since then, the petitioners are being threatened with dire consequences by the private respondents. Resultantly, a representation/complaint dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) was also made to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib District Sri Muktsar Sahib wherein a mention has been made about the alleged threat perception. Learned counsel submits that despite the official respondents having been communicated about the POONAM RATHORE 2024.11.22 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRWP-11321-2024 -2- despite the official respondents having been communicated about the alleged threat perception, no steps have been taken to come to the rescue of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that he would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.2- Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib District Sri Muktsar Sahib to look into their representation/complaint dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) and take appropriate steps at the earliest.
Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents.
Operative part
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib District Sri Muktsar Sahib to look into the representation/complaint dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) qua the alleged threat perception and take necessary steps, as may be required, in accordance with law, to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents. However, this direction will not validate the marriage said to have taken place between the parties and will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE November 22, 2024 poonam Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No POONAM RATHORE 2024.11.22 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 22 Nov 2024. The bench was MANJARI NEHRU KAUL.
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.