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…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead