Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/10591/2026 of SHALU AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 2 September 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-10591-2026 Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 SHALU AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr. S.K.Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners. **** H.S.
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-10591-2026
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
SHALU AND ANOTHER
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:
Mr. S.K.Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
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.
1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the official respondents to protect the life and personal liberty of the petitioners by providing adequate security/police protection to the petitioners and also directing the respondent No.4 to 5. Not to interfere in the personal life and liberty of the petitioners and further directing the official respondents not to allow/let respondent No. 4 to 5 or anybody else to interfere with the liberty and life of the petitioners or to harass them in any manner against the wishes of the petitioners or to cause any detriment to the petitioners in any manner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners being major, got married against the wishes of private respondents. Ever since then, the petitioners are being threatened with dire consequences by the private respondents. Resultantly, a representation dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-4) was also made to respondent No.2- RENU RAWAT 2026.09.02 16.16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Superintendent of Police, District Hansi wherein a mention has been made about the alleged threat perception. Learned counsel submits that despite the official respondents having been communicated about the alleged threat perception, no steps have been taken to come to the rescue of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that he would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, District Hansi to look into their representation dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-4) and take appropriate steps at the earliest.
3. Notice of motion to respondents No. 1 to 3 only.
4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.
5. Keeping in view the mandate of Supreme Court in the case of “Lata Singh V. State of U.P. and another”, JT 2006 (6) SC 173, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, District Hansi to look into the representation dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-4) and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents.
6. It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a stamp of this Court about the marriage of the parties and no opinion with regard to the validity of the marriage has been expressed in this order.
(H.S.GREWAL) 02.09.2026
JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.09.02 16.16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh