Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simran And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 October, 2021
CRWP-10122-2021 -1-
148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRWP-10122-2021
Date of decision : 22.10.2021
Simran and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present Criminal Writ Petition filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of
the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner
No.1-Simran is more than 18 years of age as her date of birth is 08.09.2002
which is apparent from Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-1) and petitioner No.2-
Gautam is more than 19 years of age as his date of birth is 12.09.2002 which
is apparent from Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2). Although, petitioner No.2 is
major but is not of marriageable age. Both the petitioners have married on
1 of 4
18.10.2021 which is apparent from Marriage Photographs (Annexure P-3),
as per their free Will and without any coercion. It has further been stated
that the petitioners have also given a detailed representation dated
18.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the
same.
On a pointed query put by this Court to the learned counsel for
the petitioners that although petitioner No.2 is major but is not of
marriageable age and as to whether in such circumstances, the petitioners are
entitled to seek the relief of protection of their life and liberty, learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRWP-4762-2021 titled Pooja and
another Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 25.05.2021, to submit
that petitioner No.2, in that case also, was although major but not of
marriageable age and yet the petition was entertained. Relevant portion of the
said judgment dated 25.05.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Pooja daughter of Hanuman (petitioner No.1) claims
to be 20 years and Sukhwinder Singh son of Kaval Singh
(petitioner No.2) claims to be 20 years of age. They have
pleaded that they have married against the wishes of
respondents No.4 to 6 and seek protection to their life and
liberty. They apprehend danger from respondents No.4 to 6.
They have placed on record marriage certificate, Annexure
P-3 claiming that they married on 19.05.2021. The
petitioners have submitted a representation, Annexure P-4 to
respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Sirsa.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of this Court passed by a Division Bench in LPA
2 of 4
No.385 of 2016 titled as Elaichi and another Vs. State of
Punjab and others, decided on 16.05.2016 and a judgment of
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.17069 of
2019 titled as Kawaljeet Kaur and another Vs. State of
Punjab and others, decided on 24.06.2019 to submit that
even though boy was not of marriageable age, this Court had
entertained their petitions for protection of their life and
liberty.
Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the
evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I
dispose of the petition with directions to respondent No.2 to
decide the representation of the petitioners, Annexure P-4
and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and
liberty is perceived.
It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a
stamp of this Court for the marriage of the petitioners."
Further, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment dated
24.06.2019 passed in CWP-17069-2019 titled Kawaljeet Kaur and another
Versus State of Punjab and others, and also on the judgment dated
16.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-385-2016,
titled Elaichi and another Versus State of Punjab and others.
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.
On advance notice, Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab, appears
and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and on a specific query
put by this Court, he has stated that he has no objection in case, respondent
No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, looks into the representation dated
18.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) and takes appropriate action in accordance with
law.
After considering the abovesaid facts and without commenting
3 of 4
upon the legality of the marriage and expressing any opinion on merits of
the case, the present Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to
respondent No.2 to look into the representation dated 18.10.2021 (Annexure
P-4) and after considering the threat perception to the petitioners,
respondent No.2 will take appropriate action in accordance with law.
It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State
from proceeding against the petitioners, if involved in any case.
22.10.2021 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
