MANPREET KAUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: DINESH MEHTA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2024-01-12. MANPREET KAUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2024:RJ-JD:2049] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 88/2024 1. Manpreet Kaur D/o Shri Kuldeep Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Chak 27 Ff Thandewala Tehsil And Raisinghnagar District Anupgarh (Raj) 2. Harvinder Singh S/o Shri Nachtar Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Ward No 9 Chak 21 Gg Tehsil And District Sriganganagar (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs Jaipur (Raj) 2. The Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar Through Government Advocate Rajasthan High Court Johdpur (Raj) 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Chunawadh District Sriganganagar (Raj) 4. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Jung Singh, R/o Chak 27 Ff Thandewala Tehsil And Raisinghnagar District Anupgarh (Raj) 5. Randeep Kaur W/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Chak 27 Ff Thandewala Tehsil And Raisinghnagar District Anupgarh (Raj) 6.
Satnam Singh S/o Unknown, R/o Chak 7V Tehsil Srikaranpur Disirict Sriganganagar (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/01/2024 1. The petitioners have preferred the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance [2024:RJ-JD:2049] (2 of 3) [CRLW-88/2024] of necessary directions to the respondent authorities to provide adequate security and protection to them, as they are facing grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are above 18 years of age and are in a live-in-relationship. But such relationship is not acceptable to their family members/society and they have threatened them of dire consequences. 3. He prays that adequate police protection be provided to them. 4.
Though no specific instance or imminent threat has been pleaded but considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners are having any apprehension or threat perception about their life and liberty from their relatives, they may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar indicating their concern with the name(s) of probable assailants. 5. If any such representation is moved by the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar shall consider the same and after analysing the factual situation pass necessary orders or take action to ward off any untoward incident. 6. It is hereby clarified that this order may not be construed to be a validation of petitioners’ live-in relationship and proof of their age.
Any observation made herein shall not affect any criminal or [2024:RJ-JD:2049] (3 of 3) [CRLW-88/2024] civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners, at the instance of their relatives. 7. With these observations, this criminal writ petition is disposed of. 8. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J 769-Mak/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.