Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/9016/2026 of TARIKA AND ANR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. on 28 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.9016 of 2026 Date of decision: 28.07.2026 Tarika and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP No.9016 of 2026
Date of decision: 28.07.2026
Tarika and Another
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present :-
Mr. Inderjit Singh, 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 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the lives and liberty of the petitioners as well as further directing respondents No.4 to 11 not to interfere in their personal life and liberty or to harass them 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 26.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) was also made to respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, wherein a mention has been made about the alleged threat perception. Learned counsel submits that despite the official respondents having been communicated about the SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CRWP No.9016 of 2026
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, Yamuna Nagar, to look into their representation dated 26.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) 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, Yamuna Nagar, to look into the representation dated 26.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) 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) 28.07.2026
JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.28 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment