Full Text
Translation output
$-48 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 485/2013
RINKI & ORS STATE & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sachin Kumar, Mr.C.Parkash and Mi-.Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Advocates with petitioners in person.
W.P.(CRL) 485/2013
RINKI & ORS STATE & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sachin Kumar, Mr.C.Parkash and Mi-.Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Advocates with petitioners in person.
VERSUS
Through:
Respondents Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms.Charu
Dalai, Advocate with ASI Ram Niwas, and SI Ram Mehar Kaushik, Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi.
Respondent No. 5 to 7 in person.
Respondents Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Additional Standing Counsel with Ms.Charu
Dalai, Advocate with ASI Ram Niwas, and SI Ram Mehar Kaushik, Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi.
Respondent No. 5 to 7 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
01.04.2013 Crl.
M.A. No. 3913/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 485/2013 Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are present in Court. Respondent No. 5 is the father of petitioner No.l. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are her brothers.
Respondents state that they have already reconciled to the marriage of
2013:DHC:8072 petitioner No.l with petitioner No.2 and they will not create any disturbances in their married life. Respondent No. 2 states that he had lodged a missing complaint and has now come to know about the said marriage, therefore he does not press the said complaint.
By this petition filed under Article226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners seek protection to their life and personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of Constitution of India against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioners have stated that they are majors and have married each other on
19.03.2013. Since then, they are leading their married life happily. It is also the case of petitioners that the family members of petitioner No.l were not agreeing to the said marriage therefore they had to solemnise their marriage at tiie Temple of Arya, situated Near Maida Mill Crossing, Sharda Nagar
Chowk, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of petitioners that soon after solemnisation of their marriage, they had informed about the same to their respective family members and thereafter, they have been receiving threats from respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and because of such threats on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for seeking protection.
Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have not disputed the fact that petitioner No. 1 s was a major at the time of solemnisation of her marriage with petitioner
No.2, that they have reconcile to the said marriage and also that respondent
No. 6 has agreed not to press his complaint that he had earlier lodged in the police station.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of with directions to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 not to take any steps to create any kind of disharmony in the matrimonial life of petitioners. To avoid any kind of untoward incident, concerned Police Station is directed to provide the mobile number of Beat Constable to petitioners and Beat Constable shall ensvre that the petitioners are not harassed in any manner at the hands of respondent Nos. 5 to 7.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J APRIL 01, 2013 pkb
01.04.2013 Crl.
M.A. No. 3913/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 485/2013 Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are present in Court. Respondent No. 5 is the father of petitioner No.l. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are her brothers.
Respondents state that they have already reconciled to the marriage of
2013:DHC:8072 petitioner No.l with petitioner No.2 and they will not create any disturbances in their married life. Respondent No. 2 states that he had lodged a missing complaint and has now come to know about the said marriage, therefore he does not press the said complaint.
By this petition filed under Article226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners seek protection to their life and personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of Constitution of India against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioners have stated that they are majors and have married each other on
19.03.2013. Since then, they are leading their married life happily. It is also the case of petitioners that the family members of petitioner No.l were not agreeing to the said marriage therefore they had to solemnise their marriage at tiie Temple of Arya, situated Near Maida Mill Crossing, Sharda Nagar
Chowk, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of petitioners that soon after solemnisation of their marriage, they had informed about the same to their respective family members and thereafter, they have been receiving threats from respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and because of such threats on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for seeking protection.
Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have not disputed the fact that petitioner No. 1 s was a major at the time of solemnisation of her marriage with petitioner
No.2, that they have reconcile to the said marriage and also that respondent
No. 6 has agreed not to press his complaint that he had earlier lodged in the police station.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of with directions to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 not to take any steps to create any kind of disharmony in the matrimonial life of petitioners. To avoid any kind of untoward incident, concerned Police Station is directed to provide the mobile number of Beat Constable to petitioners and Beat Constable shall ensvre that the petitioners are not harassed in any manner at the hands of respondent Nos. 5 to 7.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J APRIL 01, 2013 pkb
JUDGMENT