Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anmol & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 September, 2014
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.28840 of 2014
Decided on: 03.09.2014
Anmol Sharma and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
Present: Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sultan Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.6 and
applicant Kiran Bala.
M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).
This is a petition for protection of life and liberty filed by petitioners claiming that they have married being major. Apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the police officials and the private respondents, present petition has been filed.
Petitioner No.2 being involved in the case of kidnapping and rape of petitioner No.1, a criminal case has already been registered against petitioner No.2 by petitioner No.1 under Section 376 IPC etc. MAMTA 2014.09.05 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.28840 of 2014 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said FIR has been registered under the threat and influence of her family members. It is not out of place to observe here that an application has been filed on behalf of one Kiran Bala, to be impleaded as a party in this case claiming that she is wife of petitioner No.2.
It is claimed that marriage of petitioners is nullity as petitioner No.2 was already married. Since, disputed questions of fact and status of petitioner No.2 have been raised before this Court, petitioners as a married couple, cannot be granted any protection in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it is observed that in individual capacity the life and liberty of petitioners as citizens of India can be protected.
This petition praying for protection as husband and wife, filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
It is, however, ordered that petitioner No.1 will not be forcibly taken in custody by any of the respondents. Petitioner No.1 who had, on last date of hearing, expressed her desire to be kept in Protection Home, Chandigarh, is present in the Court. She being an adult is at liberty to leave the Court on her own will but she has given in writing that she may be sent to Protection Home, Chandigarh again. She is permitted to leave this Court with the lady security official from the Court.
MAMTA2014.09.05 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.28840 of 2014 -3-
So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he will be at liberty to protect his liberty by availing remedy under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.
Nothing mentioned in this order will be considered as expression of opinion regarding the actual relationship of the parties. It will be open to the parties to establish their relationship in accordance with law in separate appropriate proceedings.
With these observation, this petition is disposed of. In case petitioner No.1 expresses her desire in writing to leave the Protection Home, her desire will be honoured. She will be at liberty to make a request in writing to leave the Protection Home at any time.
03.09.2014 (M.M.S. BEDI)
mmt JUDGE
MAMTA
2014.09.05 16:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document