Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kajal And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 June, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080359
CRWP-5776-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRWP-5776-2024
Date of decision : 20.06.2024
Kajal and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Ramandeep Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners (through V.C.).
Mr.N.S. Diwana, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are living in "Live in Relationship". It has been
stated that the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 09.09.2005 as per the Voter
Card (Annexure P-1) and the petitioner No.2 was born in the year 2004 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 "Live in-Relationship" out
of their free will and without any pressure. It has further been stated that the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080359
petitioners have given a detailed representation dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure
P-3) to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda.
3. Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.
4. On advance notice, Mr.N.S. Diwana, 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,
Bathinda, looks into the representation dated 06.06.2024 (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.
5. This Court has 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 "Live in
Relationship".
6. The issue as to whether protection of life and liberty should be
granted to a couple in a "Live in Relationship" is no longer res integra.
7. 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", 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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080359
liberties from being invaded by the 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 State-respondents 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."
8. It is also relevant to mention here that the 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:-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080359
"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 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."
9. 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."
10. The aspect of life and liberty was considered to be a paramount
importance and thus, Superintendent of Police in the said case was directed
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080359
to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any
protection to the petitioners therein.
11. 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.
12. After considering the above-said facts and without commenting
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 dated 06.06.2024 (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.
13. 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
June 20, 2024
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
