Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/44324/2013 of ABHISHEK SONI AND ANR. Vs UT OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. on 31 December 2013
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-44324 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013 Abhishek Soni and another .....Petitioners v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-44324 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: December 31, 2013
Abhishek Soni and another
v.
State of U.T., Chandigarh and others
.....Petitioners
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Petitioners in person withMr.D.S.Nigha, Advocate.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is forissuance of direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to protect the life and libertyof the petitioners at the hands of respondent nos.4 and 5.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitionerswill be satisfied if respondent no.2, i.e., Senior Superintendent of Police,Chandigarh, is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law,on application, dated 25.12.2013, Annexure P4, already made to him by thepetitioners.
As per averments made in the petition both the petitioners aremajor. Date of birth of petitioner no.1-Abhishek Soni, as per copy ofIdentity card issued by Election Commission of India, Annexure P1, is26.11.1992, and date of birth of petitioner No.2-Sapna Sharma, as per copyof Aadhar card issued by Election Commission of India, Annexure P2, is20.8.1993. They got married on 25.12.2013. Photographs of the marriageare Annexure P3.
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.,Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to take appropriate action,in accordance with law, on application, dated 25.12.2013, Annexure P4, 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.1 as perlaw.
31.12.2013meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta)Judge
Page 1 of 1
Loading citations and judicial treatment…