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…

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