Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Anjli Saini D/O Shri Ramji Lal Saini, … vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:22991) on 9 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:22991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 749/2025
1. Anjli Saini D/o Shri Ramji Lal Saini, Wife Of Shri Anil,
Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Bhopji Ki Dhani, Sikar
Road, Harmada, Po Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan) At
Present Resident Of Ward No. 3, Rajput Mohalla, Po
Nibhera, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj).
2. Anil S/o Shri Damodar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 3, Rajput Mohalla, Po Nibhera, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Alwar ( Rajasthan).
3. S.h.o. Police Station Barodamev, District Alwar
( Rajasthan).
4. Ramnath Saini S/o Shri Narayan Saini, Resident Of Rakhi
General Store, Bhopji Ki Dhani, Sikar Road, Harmada, Po
Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
5. Ramjilal S/o Shri Ramnath Saini, Resident Of Rakhi
General Store, Bhopji Ki Dhani, Sikar Road, Harmada, Po
Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
6. Prakash Saini S/o Shri Ramjilal, Resident Of Rakhi
General Store, Bhopji Ki Dhani, Sikar Road, Harmada, Po
Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
7. Pawan Saini S/o Shri Pappu Saini Alias Kesar Chand Saini,
Resident Of Rakhi General Store, Bhopji Ki Dhani, Sikar
Road, Harmada, Po Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
8. Lakhan Saini S/o Shri Pappu Saini Alias Keshar Chand
Saini, Resident Of Rakhi General Store, Bhopji Ki Dhani,
Sikar Road, Harmada, Po Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
9. Pappu Alias Kesar Chand Saini S/o Shri Ramnath Saini,
Resident Of Rakhi General Store, Bhopji Ki Dhani, Sikar
Road, Harmada, Po Akhepura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
10. Chetan Saini S/o Bhawar Lal Saini, Resident Of Roop
Basant General Store, Saini Market, Harnathpura,
Jhotwara, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 02:01:16 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22991] (2 of 3) [CRLW-749/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)
Order
09/06/2025
1. Defects pointed out by the Registry are overruled.
2. Issue notices to the respondent(s).
3. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notices on behalf of
respondents No. 1 to 4.
4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that they are major having date of birth i.e. 30.03.2006 &
01.12.2000 and have performed marriage. In order to place proof
of marriage on record, one certificate has been enclosed as
Annex.2. It has also been stated that both the petitioners belong
to different community and their parents were not agreeing for
their marriage, therefore, on account of adamance and
displeasure, threats have been given to them which has caused
danger to their life. Counsel also submits that it is their first
marriage and they have not performed any other marriage prior to
the marriage in question.
5. In the light of provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, they have filed the instant writ petition for seeking
protection and direction to the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record one
order dated 10.12.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 2182/2024 (Vanshika Soni & Anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein this Court has given following
directions:-
“3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to
approaching this Court the petitioners have already
submitted representations before the concerned Station
House Officer and the Nodal Officer pursuant to the(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 02:01:16 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22991] (3 of 3) [CRLW-749/2025]orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan
(S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024). Counsel
submits that appropriate directions be issued in favour of
the petitioners.
4. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs.
State of UP, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S.
Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, reported in (2010) 5 SCC
600, Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma reported in (2013)
15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the life and
personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected
except according to procedure established by law, as
mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act,
2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life
and liberty of the citizens.
5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned
counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the
petitioners have already submitted appropriate
representation/application seeking protection before the
Nodal Officer as well as concerned Station House Officer,
it is expected from the officers concerned to look into the
matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court in
the case of Suman Meena (supra) and ensure that after
analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may
pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and
protection to the petitioners.
6. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall
not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated
against the petitioners.”
7. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioners
is disposed of with the directions that the representations filed by
the petitioners before the Nodal Officer as well as Superintendent
of Police shall be decided in the light of judgment of Suman
Meena (supra) and they would also ensure protection against
threat perception, if any, and may pass appropriate orders in
order to provide adequate security and protection to the
petitioners. The writ petition has been disposed of.
8. Stay application and all other pending application/s, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J
DIVYA /202
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 02:01:16 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)