Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vandna And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 March, 2022
CRWP-1997-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
258
CRWP-1997-2022
Decided on : 23.03.2022
Vandna and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ especially in the nature of
mandamus directing the official respondents for protecting the life and
liberty of the petitioners.
On 07.03.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the
following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that although petitioner No.1 is stated to be
aged about 17 years and 11 months but she would turn
1 of 5
major on 15.03.2022. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be 19
years of age and is although major but is not of
marriageable age and both the petitioners are living
together in a "Live in Relationship". It is further
submitted that the petitioners have given a detailed
representation dated 01.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) to
respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police,
Fazilka with regard to protection of their life and liberty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in case Jashanpreet Kaur and
another Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported as
2019(4) RCR (Civil) 183, in which case although, girl
therein was aged about 15 years and 8 months and boy
was aged about 19 years and 3 months, yet the
Coordinate Bench after considering the provisions of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was pleased to protect the
life and liberty of the petitioners therein. The relevant
portions of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"1 to 5 xxx xxx
6. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are
that the petitioner No.1, a minor girl born on
04.10.2003 and petitioner No.2, a boy born on
10.03.2000, though a major, but not of
marriageable age, purportedly are in love with
each other and got married on 17.06.2019 at
Panchkula according to Hindu Rites and
Ceremonies. Photographs of their marriage have
been appended with the petition.
7 to 16. xxx xxx
17. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of
the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental
right of seeking protection of life and liberty. I
2 of 5
have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional
Fundamental Right under Article 21 of
Constitution of India stands on a much higher
pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the
Constitutional Scheme it must be protected,
regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or
void marriage or even the absence of any
marriage between the parties.
18. It is the bounden duty of the State as per the
Constitutional obligations casted upon it to
protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right
to human life is to be treated on much higher
pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a
major. The mere fact that the petitioners are not
of marriageable age would not deprive them of
their fundamental right as envisaged in
Constitution of India, being citizens of India.
19. In view of the discussion above, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Batala is directed to
verify the contents of the petition particularly the
threat perception of the petitioners and thereafter
provide necessary protection qua their life and
liberty, if deemed fit.
20. It is clarified that this order shall neither be
treated as a stamp of this Court qua marriage of
the petitioners nor any reflection on the merits of
the contentions raised by them in the present
petition.
21. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of "
Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG,
Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and seeks time to get instructions.
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate appears on behalf of
3 of 5
respondent Nos.4 to 7 and has submitted that in the
present case, FIR No.21 dated 04.03.2022 under
Sections 363 and 366 of IPC has been registered against
petitioner No.2 and he is likely to be arrested in the near
future. It is also submitted that petitioner No.2 has
earlier gone to Rehabilitation Centre twice in Bikaner at
Rajasthan.
Adjourned to 23.03.2022.
In the meantime, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case and without commenting upon
the legality of the marriage, respondent No.2-Senior
Superintendent of Police, Fazilka is directed to look into
representation dated 01.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) and
after considering the threat perception to the petitioners,
respondent No.2 shall 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 other FIR of which they are accused.
Petitioner No.1 is also directed to be present in
the Court on the next date of hearing."
The petitioner No. 1 has now become major as her date of
birth is 15.03.2004. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person and she has
stated that she wishes to reside with petitioner No. 2.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 has requested
that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 want to meet the petitioner No. 1 but
however, petitioner No. 1 has refused to meet them.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances,
the present Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to
respondent No.2- Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka to look into
4 of 5
the representation dated 01.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) 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 other
case.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 23rd, 2022
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
