W.P.(CRL)/3973/2018 of POOJA & ANR. Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE on 31 December 2018

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 3973/2018

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Kamna Vohra, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the DHC,accepts notice on behalf of the State. The Petitioners in the present petitionhave approached this Court on account of alleged threats received from theparents of Petitioner No. 1. Both the Petitioners are adults and claim to havemarried each other on their own freewill. They apprehended threat to theirlife and liberty from the parents of Petitioner No. 1.

4. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 have solemnised their marriage in Arya SamajMandir, Ghaziabad and they have also got their marriage registered underthe Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules 2017 before the MarriageRegistration Officer, Ghaziabad.Apprehending danger from relatives ofPetitioner No. 1, the present petition has been filed seeking order ofprotection. Petitioners state that they have intimated about their marriage tothe Commissioner of Police and several other authorities including SHO,PS, Nangloi. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for theRespondent pointed out that the parents of Petitioner No. 1 are also presentin the Court. The Court also had an occasion to interact with them. Bothmother and father of Petitioner No. 1 have stated that they have nowaccepted the marriage and have no grievance against the Petitioners and thatthey have no reason to make any threats to them.

5. Regardless of the assurance given by the parents of the Petitioner No. 1,the Petitioners are still apprehensive and therefore, it is necessary thatappropriate directions be issued to the police to assure that the Petitionersare given due protection. It has been time and again reiterated by this Courtas well as by the Supreme Court that all persons are entitled to live in termsof their constitutional freedom recognized by the law of this country andtherefore the Petitioners marriage is a decision, for which the Petitionerscannot be held at fault for any reason whatsoever. Petitioners are residingwithin the jurisdiction of police station, Bindapur. The address and otherparticulars whereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the Statewho has in turn has handed over the same to the Inspector, Rajiv Yadav,Investigating Officer, PS, Bindapur.Learned counsel has further pointed

that at the instance of brother of Petitioner No. 1, an FIR No. 1068/18 underSection 365/34 IPC was registered at PS, Bindapur. The said FIR allegesthat Petitioner No. 1 (Pooja) has been abducted by Sourav Singh (PetitionerNo. 2) and she has been confined at some unknown place. In view of theabove and for the reason that Petitioner No. 1 alleges that her father is wellknown to the officer at PS, Bindapur and she has expressed graveapprehension in this regard, it is deemed appropriate that SHO, PS UttamNagar instead of SHO, PS, Bindapur be directed to provide necessary anddue protection to the Petitioners. SHO, PS Uttam Nagar shall provide hiscontact details and also contact details of one Lady Police Officer to thePetitioners. These numbers shall be kept operational at all times so that inthe event of any exigency, they can be contacted and intimated on the saidnumbers. It has been further assured to this Court that in case any messageis received on the aforesaid numbers, an adequate and immediate responseshall be given. The Beat constables shall also regularly visit the residence ofthe Petitioners on daily basis and record the same in the Roznamcha. Theaforesaid arrangement shall be initially for a period of one month andthereafter the safety and security of the Petitioners shall be assessed by theSHO, PS, Uttam Nagar on weekly basis. Should the Petitioners change theiraddress to the jurisdiction of any other police station in the NCT of Delhi,the SHO, the subsequent police station shall be intimated about the changein address and the orders passed by this Court so that due protection grantedis granted to them in terms of this order. No further orders are required andthe petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in view of the fact that the marriage between parties has now been solemnised and both ofthem have now approached the Court for seeking protection order, furtheraction for closure in the FIR No. 1068/2018 can be taken only on thestatement of Pooja being recorded under Section 164 CrPC. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, it is felt appropriate that the statement of Pooja(Petitioner No. 1) be recorded before this Court.

7. In view of the statement recorded on a separate sheet, the concernedInvestigating Officer shall now proceed to take further steps on the basis ofthe said statement.

8. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO, PS Uttam Nagar for compliance.

9. Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

DECEMBER 31, 2018/nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J(VACATION JUDGE)