Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/44266/2013 of RAKHI & ANR. Vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 31 December 2013
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-44266 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013 Rakhi and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Petitioners in person
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-44266 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: December 31, 2013
Rakhi and another
State of Haryana and others
v.
.....Petitioners
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Petitioners in person withMr.Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is forissuance of direction to respondent nos.1 to 3 to protect the life and libertyof the petitioners at the hands of respondent nos.4 to 7.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitionerswill be satisfied if respondent no.2, i.e.,Superintendent of Police, YamunaNagar, Haryana, is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance withlaw, on application, dated 26.12.2013, Annexure P5, already made to himby the petitioners.
As per averments made in the petition both the petitioners aremajor. Date of birth of petitioner no.1-Rakhi, as per copy of Aadhar card,issued by Unique Identification Authority of India, Annexure P1, is1.1.1994, and age of petitioner No.2-Isran, as per his affidavit, Annexure P2,is 23 years. They got married on 26.12.2013, as per marriage certificate,Annexure P3. Photographs of the marriage are Annexure P4.
In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for thepetitioners and without going into the merits of the claim raised by thepetitioners, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.2,i.e.,Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, to take appropriate action, inaccordance with law, on application, dated 26.12.2013, Annexure P5,already stated to have been moved to him by the petitioners.
However, it is made clear that this order will be having noeffect on the validity of alleged marriage of petitioners and also on anyother civil or criminal proceedings instituted against petitioner no.2 as per law.
31.12.2013meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta)Judge