Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Garima Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 30494 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT GARIMA SHUKLA W/O SHRI SHIVKUMAR
SHUKLA D/O SHRI VINOD RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT
21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE
AGAI P.S LALGANJ DISTRICT PRATAPGARH U.P
(UTTAR PRADESH)
2. SHIVKUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB VILLAGE AGAI P.S. LALGANJ DIST.
PRATAPRAGH (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR KORI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLCIE STATION
M O R A R DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. VINOD RAJPUT S/O SHRI RAMNIWAS SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE MAHEWA KA
PURA POST BADAGAON NAWLI DIST. MORENA
M.P. AT PRESENT R/O A-11 SURI NAGAR, SLP
COLLEGE MAL ROAD, MORAR DIST. GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 14-12-2023
10:55:02 AM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By way of the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners herein, who have contracted a marriage on 01.04.2023,
are seeking police protection against respondent No.4, father of petitioner No.1,
on the ground that they have been threatened for their lives and also they have
every apprehension that a criminal case would be registered against them.
2. The aforesaid police protection has been sought assailing the fact that
since it is an inter-caste marriage between the petitioners, therefore, there is ever
apprehension that the petitioners may be subjected to harassment which may
put their lives into danger.
3. At the outset, Shri Ravindra Dixit, Government Advocate appearing
for the State on advance copy had raised a preliminary objection with regard to
maintainability of the present petition on the ground that both the petitioners are
resident of District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, no proof of marriage has been
appended alongwith the petition to have taken place in the vicinity of the
jurisdiction of this Court, the mark-sheets appended alongwith the petition with
regard to age and education qualifications of petitioner No.1 as well as
petitioner No.2 are of other States than the Madhya Pradesh and on the basis of
photographs, it cannot be presumed that even the marriage had taken place;
thus, only on the basis of a complaint made to the Superintendent of Police,
Gwalior and Station House Officer, Police Station Morar, Gwalior, no direction
for protection can be issued to the police authorities. It was thus prayed that the
present petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed.
4. Encountered with the aforesaid preliminary objections, counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that so far as protection of petitioner No.1 is
concerned, she is resident of Morar, District Gwalior which could be evident
from the Aadhar Card which has been filed alongwith the petition, wherein her
address has shown to be Village Maheva Ka Pura, Baragaon Nawali, District
Morena and since both the petitioners belong to different communities, there is
every likelihood that respondent No.4 or any other family members of petitioner
No.1 may cause harm to the petitioners which may result in danger to their lives.
5. It was further submitted that the petitioners though are major
apprehends that a criminal case may get registered against petitioner No.2 which
may hamper his liberty, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed
and suitable directions may be issued to respondents/police authorities for
providing police protection in the light of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and
Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and in Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India
and Others reported in 2018 (7) SCC 192.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the entire body of the petition as well as the cause title, it could
be evident that at present, the petitioners are living in Uttar Pradesh to be
precise District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh. Except for the fact which had been
mentioned in the complaint made to the police authorities that the marriage had
taken place at Gwalior, no other documents have been appended alongwith the
petition with regard to their marriage taken place in the vicinity of jurisdiction of
this Court or their present living status. It appears that under the garb of present
petition, the petitioner No.2 wants to avoid registration of any criminal case
registered against him.
8. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts situation, this Court
doesn't find any reason to accede to the prayer made by counsel for the
petitioners.
9. The judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners since are based on
some different facts are not applicable to the present matter.
10. Thus, the present petition being devoid of any substance is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
