Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chinky And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 December, 2024
CRWP-12594
12594-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
115 CRWP
CRWP-12594-2024
Date of Decision:
Decision:- 30.12.2024
Chinky and Anr.
......Petitionerss
Versus
State of Haryana and Ors.
......Respondentss
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sharan Sethi, Additional A.G., Haryana.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for granting
protection to the petitioners from the private respondents on the grounds
that they have a threat to their lives due to their marriage against the wishes
of the girl’s parents.
2. The petition does not carve out any specific threat perception
except for bald averments in the representation sent through the email of
the counsel on 25.12.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Jind. The email
alleges that the family members and relatives
relatives of petitioner No.1 visited the
house of petitioner No.2 and threatened to eliminate the petitioners as they
Manju
2024.12.30 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRWP-12594
12594-2024
-2-
have ruined the honour and respect of the family in society. However, the
father of petitioner No.2 did not inform any police authority about tthe
he threat
received from the family members of petitioner No.1
No.1, nor he sought any
protection for their children.
3. On a specific query regarding the occupation of petitioner
No.2, it was submitted that he is an agriculturist and owns 4 to 5 acres of
land. However,
owever, it was clarified that the father of petitioner No.2 (who was
allegedly threatened by the girl’s father’s relatives) owned the said property,
yet no action has been taken.
4. There is no doubt that the life and liberty of citizen must be
protected,, and it is the duty of the State to do so. However, in the absence
of any cogent threat perception, such accommodations need to be
discarded. The representation does not disclose any date or time when the
threat was allegedly made, nor does it disclose ho
how
w and when the girl’s
parents were informed that the girl has married petitioner No.2.
5. However, inn light of the above, although
though there is no merit in
the present petition, however as an abundantt precaution, the present petition
n
is disposed of and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to strictly verify, the threat
perception and
a in case, the entire story is found to be false, strict action
should be initiated against the petitioners.
petitioner
6. The present petition is disposed of with the above direction.
(ALOK JAIN)
December 30,
30 2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
Manju
2024.12.30 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document