Smt. Gulshan v. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal
Case at a glance
- Neutral citation
- 2025:RJ-JP:23481
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 21
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any stand disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/239 (SUDESH BANSAL (V.J.)), J
Judgment
Ajay Kumar Son Of Shri Prakash, Resident Of Village Jhirana, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Jor Singh Son Of Shri Gopal, Resident Of Harjanpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Ramesh Verma Son Of Shri Girdhari Lal, Resident Of Harjanpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Munesh Devi Wife Of Shri Deep Chand, Resident Of Harjanpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Lal Chand Khardiya Son Of Shri Bhagirath, Resident Of Harjanpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
11. Shankar Lal Paliwal Son Of Shri Bhagirath, Resident Of Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Dilip Verma Son Of Shri Bhagirath, Resident Of Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL (V.J.) Order 24/06/2025
The defects pointed out by the Office stands waived in view of the fact that petitioners have already submitted a [2025:RJ-JP:23481] (2 of 3) [CRLW-771/2025] Representation before the Nodal Officer seeking protection, which has not been decided.
Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are major and enterered into registered marriage and in order to live happily and peacefully, they are seeking protection qua private respondents, who are not happy with the relationship of petitioners.
Pursuant the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India [(2018)10 SCC 1] and of this court in Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 4-1-2019, the State Government through Director General of Police issued a Circular dated 18-1-2019 and appointed Nodel Officer at every Police Station in the state of Rajasthan for ventilation of grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate protection. Life and liberty is fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.
Operative part
In view of above, however, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not inclined to enter into examining the validity of marriage/ legality of relationship of parties, therefore does not [2025:RJ-JP:23481] (3 of 3) [CRLW-771/2025] render any affirmation of legality and validity of the status of parties, under which they are living together, but keeping in mind the proposition of law set forth by the Apex Court in catena of judgments and in order to protect fundamental rights of parties for their life and liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.
In case petitioners move any application, it is expected from the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action for not allowing to illegally hinder in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners by private respondents, who are not agreeable to the relationship of petitioners, but after verifying the fact, if required.
However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.
Stay application and other pending application(s), if any stand disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/239 (SUDESH BANSAL (V.J.)), J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 21.
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.