CRM-M/44334/2013 of HEENA AND ANR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS on 31 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M- 44334 of 2013(O&M)Date of Decision: December 31, 2013.

Heena and another

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...... RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

Present:Petitioners in person with Mr. Ranjeet Singh Kang,Advocate, for the petitioners.

*****

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners willbe satisfied if Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur i.e. respondentNo.2 is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law onapplication dated 30.12.2013 (Annexure P-5), made to him by the petitioners.

As per averments made in the petition both the petitioners aremajor. Date of birth of petitioner No.1-Heena, as per copy of certificate ofMatriculation Examination, Annexure P-1, is 10.01.1995 and date of birth ofpetitioner No.2 –Johny as per copy of certificate of Middle StandardExamination, Annexure P-2, is 02.02.1994. They got married on 30.12.2013

as per Marriage Certificate, Annexure P-3. Photographs of the marriage areAnnexure P-4.

In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for thepetitioners and without going into the merits of the claim raised by thepetitioners in the petition, this petition is disposed of with direction torespondent No.2 - i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur to takeappropriate action in accordance with law on application dated 30.12.2013(Annexure P-5) as already stated to have been moved to him by thepetitioners.

However, it is made clear that this order will be having no effecton the validity of alleged marriage of petitioners or on any other civil orcriminal proceedings instituted against petitioner no.2 as per law.

December 31, 2013.‘om’

( RAM CHAND GUPTA )JUDGE