Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta Rani And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 July, 2021
CRWP No.6905 of 2021 ---1---
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
118 CRWP No.6905 of 2021
Date of Decision:July 26, 2021
Geeta Rani and another ......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Parvesh Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners.
----
SUDIP AHLUWALIA J. (ORAL)
Both the petitioners seek protection of their life and liberty by contending that both of them having attained the age of majority, have married each other against the wishes of their respective family members respondent Nos.4 to 10 and so seek appropriate protection from the authorities. They submitted a representation (Annexure P-6) in this regard to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka on 20.07.2021 but are still apprehensive about their security in view of the apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family members-respondents.
2. Both of them do appear to have crossed the age of majority as seen from the copies of documents filed and have married each other, in support of which, Marriage Certificate issued by " Guru Nanak Darbar (Regd.), Gali No.3, New Abadi, Islamabad, Fazilka-152123 (Punjab) (Annexure P-4) and 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2021 03:51:48 ::: CRWP No.6905 of 2021 ---2---
photographs (Annexure P-5) have been placed on record.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, this appears to be a fit case for this Court to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of the mandate contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India to protect the citizen's right to life and liberty.
4. Thus the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka is directed to consider the representation dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-6) and take appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
5. It is nevertheless clarified that this order is issued only on the premise that petitioner No.1 (bride) has crossed the age of majority as seen from the documents placed on record being her Matriculation Certificate. This would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of approval on the legality of their marriage which essentially would come in the domain of the concerned Matrimonial Courts. Further, they would not be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in commission of any cognizable offence(s).
6. The petition is disposed off with the above direction.
(SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
July 26, 2021
sonia arora
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2021 03:51:49 :::