Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anchal Devgan And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 September, 2022
CRWP-8698-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRWP-8698-2022
Date of decision : 09.09.2022
Anchal Devgan and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Gurnoor Sandhu, Advocate for
Mr.R. P. S. Bara, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the ofificial respondents
to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.
The petitioners are living in "Live in Relationship". It has been
stated that the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 04.10.2001 as per the
Aadhar Card (Annexure P-1) and the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is
24.10.2001 as per the Aadhar Card (Annexure P-2). It is, thus, clear that
although petitioner no.1 is of marriageable age but petitioner no.2 has not
yet attained the marriageable age of 21 years. However, it is the case of the
petitioners that they are unmarried and living in a "Live in Relationship"
out of their free will and without any pressure. It has further been stated that
the petitioners have given a detailed representation dated 01.09.2022
(Annexure P-3) to respondent No.2- Senior Superintendent of Police,
1 of 5
Batala, Police District Batala.
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.
On advance notice, Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr.DAG,
Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. He
has stated that he has no objection in case, respondent no.2-Senior
Superintendent of Police, Batala, Police District Batala, looks into the
representation dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) with a limited prayer for
only protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and takes appropriate
action, in accordance with law.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considered the facts as stated in the petition as well as in the accompanying
annexures. This Court is fully aware of the fact that petitioner no.2 is not of
marriageable age and that the petitioners, even as per their own case, are not
married and are living in a "Live in Relationship".
The issue whether protection of life and liberty should be
granted to a couple in a "Live in Relationship" or not, is no longer res
integra.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision dated
09.08.2021 in CRWP-7451-2021 titled Tamnna and another Vs. State of
Punjab and others, in which, in a similar case of "Live in Relationship", a
coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patiala to look into the threat perception of the
petitioners therein and pass appropriate order. Relevant portion of the order
dated 09.08.2021 in CRWP-7451-2021 is reproduced hereasunder:-
"Petitioners have prayed for issuance of necessary
directions to the official respondents for protecting their
civil/personal rights and liberties from being invaded by the
2 of 5
private respondents.
Petitioners are living in live-in relationship.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner
No.1 is more than 18 years of age. Petitioner No.2 is more than 18
years of age, but he has not attained the marriageable age of 21
years.
Precisely, in the context of aforesaid relief, petitioners have
approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, District
Patiala/respondent No.2 by way of representation dated
04.08.2021 (through courier).
At this stage, this Court is only concerned with lives and
personal liberties of the petitioners.
Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, D.A.G.,
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of Staterespondents No.1 to 3.
At this stage, without meaning anything on the merits of the
case and without commenting upon relationship or otherwise of
the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to look into the
grievance of the petitioners for which a representation has already
been filed by the petitioners on 04.08.2021. Respondent No.2 is
directed to assess the threat perception of the petitioners. It is
made clear that this Court has not commented upon validity of
relationship or otherwise of the petitioners in any manner.
Respondent No.2 would be fully empowered to look into the threat
perception of the petitioners by devising his/her own mechanism
and pass appropriate order on the representation dated
04.08.2021 preferably within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly."
It is also relevant to mention here that Coordinate Bench of this
Court had dismissed one Criminal Writ Petition bearing CRWP-4199-2021
vide order dated 11.05.2021 where the petitioners were also in "Live in
Relationship". Relevant portion of the said order dated 11.05.2021 passed
in CRWP-4199-2021 is reproduced hereasunder:-
"Petitioners Gulza Kumari and Gurwinder Singh have filed
the present petition stating that presently they are residing
together, though, they intend to get married shortly; they are
3 of 5
apprehending danger to their lives at hands of parents of
petitioner No.1-Gulza Kumari. As a matter of fact, the petitioners
in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of
approval on their live-in-relationship, which is morally and
socially not acceptable and no protection order in the petition can
be passed. The petition stands dismissed accordingly."
The same matter was, however, taken to Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4028 of 2021 and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had vide its judgment dated 04.06.2021
disposed of the same in the following terms:-
"The petitioners in both the petitions are stated to have
represented to the Superintendent of Police.
The grievance is that the representation(s) has not been
considered by the police.
We have gone through the representation(s). We dispose of
both the petitions granting liberty to the petitioners to supplement
their representation to the Superintendent of Police.
Needless to state that since it concerns life and liberty, the
Superintendent of Police is required to act expeditiously in
accordance with law, including the grant of any protection to the
petitioners in view of the apprehensions/threats,uninfluenced by
the observations of the High Court.
The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of.
Pending applications shall also stand disposed of."
The aspect of life and liberty was considered to be a paramount
importance and thus, Superintendent of Police in the said case was directed
to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any
protection to the petitioners therein.
Neither this Court wishes to go into the merits of the present
case nor wants to comment upon the relationship of the petitioners but the
only concern is with regard to their life and liberty, protection of which is of
paramount consideration.
After considering the above-said facts and without commenting
4 of 5
upon the legality of the relationship or expressing any opinion on merits of
the case, the present criminal writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent no.2 to look into the representation (Annexure P-3) and to assess
the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same,
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 case.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
September 09, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
