Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/44328/2013 of SUNITA AND ANR. Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. on 31 December 2013
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-44328 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013 Sunita and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Petitioners in person
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-44328 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: December 31, 2013
Sunita and another
State of Haryana and others
v.
.....Petitioners
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Petitioners in person withMr.Jagpal Singh, 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,Sonepat, is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, onapplication, dated 29.12.2013, Annexure P5, already made to him bypetitioner no.1.
As per averments made in the petition both the petitioners aremajor. Date of birth of petitioner no.1-Sunita, as per copy of Aadhar cardissued by Unique Identification Authority of India, Annexure P1, is22.1.1994, and year of birth of petitioner No.2- Arjun, as per copy ofAadhar card issued by Unique Identification Authority of India, AnnexureP2, is 1989. They got married on 29.12.2013, as per marriage certificate,Annexure P3. Photographs of the marriage are Annexure P4.
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, Sonepat, to take appropriate action, inaccordance with law, on application, dated 29.12.2013, Annexure P5, already stated to have been moved to him by petitioner no.1.
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.2 as perlaw.
31.12.2013meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta)Judge
Page 1 of 1
Loading citations and judicial treatment…