Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satinder Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 March, 2011
Author: M.M.S.Bedi
Bench: M.M.S.Bedi
Crl. Misc. No.25739 of 2009 in CRM No.M-9748 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.25739 of 2009 in
CRM No.M-9748 of 2009.
Decided on: March 29, 2011.
Satinder Kaur and another.
.. Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others.
.. Applicants-Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
***
PRESENT Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for petitioner No.2.
Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate,
for applicants-respondents No.5 to 7.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, AAG., Punjab.
Petitioner No.1, Satinder Kaur, in person.
... 1
Crl. Misc. No.25739 of 2009 in CRM No.M-9748 of 2009
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Satinder Kaur and Gurpreet Singh, had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for protection of their life and liberty and praying for adequate security as they apprehended threat to their life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos.5 to 7.
Petitioner No.1 claims that her age was 30 years at the time of filing of the petition whereas the age of petitioner No.2 is more than 28 years. It has been claimed that they have married against the wishes of their family members on 15.03.2009, at Gurudwara Sahib Patshahi Dasvi, Village Jiwan Singh Wala, District Bathinda, as per Sikh rites. A certificate issued by Gurudwara Sahib has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Apprehending threat to her life, petitioner No.1 has submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, Annexure P-4, for protection of her life and liberty.
When the petition came up for preliminary hearing, protection was granted to the petitioners that they would not be arrested by the police on the allegations of private respondents that petitioner No.1 has been kidnapped or abducted by petitioner No.2. Thereafter, an application was filed by the parents of petitioner No.1 claiming that on the basis of a fake certificate of marriage, the petitioners have obtained a favourable order from the Court. The father of petitioner No.1, Makhan Singh, made a statement in the Court on 21.07.2009, that he is interested in the welfare of his daughter and has got no intention to harm Satinder Kaur or Gurpreet ... 2 Crl. Misc. No.25739 of 2009 in CRM No.M-9748 of 2009 Singh but the factum of marriage of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 was not admitted. A direction was issued to respondent No.5, Makhan Singh and his family members to amicably settle the matter vide order dated 21.07.2009. After adjournment of the matter on few dates of hearing, the case has been taken up today.
Counsel for the private respondents has contended that on the basis of fake certificate of marriage, the interim protection has been obtained by the petitioners.
Petitioner No.1 is present in the Court. It is an admitted fact that petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have attained majority, as such, they have got a fundamental right of protection of their life and liberty. Irrespective of the validity of the marriage certificate, it is sufficient to observe here that the constitutional right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is available to every citizen.
Without entering into the disputed questions raised by the private respondents regarding the factum of marriage, it is held that life and liberty of petitioner Nos.1 & 2, requires to be protected by the State authorities. At present, petitioner No.1, has been brought in the Court by her father and brother. She being major, it was deemed appropriate to ask her about her wish in context to her constitutional right of liberty. She has expressed her desire to stay with petitioner No.2. An attempt was made to amicably settle the matter by persuading the private respondents especially respondent No.5, Makhan Singh, father of petitioner No.1, who is ... 3 Crl. Misc. No.25739 of 2009 in CRM No.M-9748 of 2009 working as a Preacher in village Bhadson. He submitted that petitioner No.1 has been misguided by petitioner No.2 and that petitioner No.2 is not legally married to petitioner No.1 and that he has been able to procure fake documents in order to defraud the Court.
Taking into consideration, the right of life and liberty of petitioner Nos.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that private respondent Nos.5 to 7, cannot impose any restrictions on petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2. Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Court to see that unreasonable restrictions on the life and liberty of the petitioners, who are major, are not imposed. Even if it is presumed that petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are not legally married, still the constitutional right of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be violated.
In view of above circumstances, I do not find any ground to review the order dated 15.04.2009. The application for recalling the order dated 15.04.2009, is dismissed. It is further directed that necessary protection will be provided to petitioner Nos.1 & 2, by the State authorities. In case of any infringement of fundamental right of life and liberty of the petitioners or any cruelty at the hands of private respondent Nos.5 to 7, necessary action will be taken by the State authorities to ensure that the liberty of the petitioners is protected. Private respondent Nos.5 to 7, are directed not to impose their wish on the individual rights of the petitioners. In case of any restriction on the liberty or movements of the freedom of ... 4 Crl. Misc. No.25739 of 2009 in CRM No.M-9748 of 2009 petitioner No.1, or that of petitioner No.2, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda or any other senior police official of the area in which the petitioners are located. It will also be open to the petitioners to approach this Court in case of violation of the above said order at any stage.
Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to leave this Court either with private respondents or with petitioner No.2. This order has been passed in the presence of ASI Gurcharan Singh of Police Station, Bathinda Cantt. and ASI Ranjit Singh of Police Station, Bhadson.
A photocopy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Special Secretary.
Disposed of.
(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 29, 2011.
rka ... 5