Punjab-Haryana High Court
Slatun @ Arsoon And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 October, 2024
SANDEEP SETHI
2024.10.30 01:49
CRWP-10578-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(106)
CRWP-10578-2024
Date of Decision:-30.10.2024
Slatun @ Arsoon and another
beens Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
beeees Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
oh 2 2h 3
Present: Mr. Intizar-Ul-Hasan, Advocate for the petitioners.
2 2K 3 Oe
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the
petitioners, who got married on 25.09.2024, at the hands of private
respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner
No.1 is the second wife of petitioner No.2 and the petitioners are receiving
threats from respondent Nos.7 and 9 who are none other than the son and
brother of petitioner No.2. He submits that petitioner No.1 was ousted from
the house by the private respondents on 09.10.2024 and after a while,
petitioner No.1 also joined the company of petitioner No.2. Subsequent
thereto, the petitioners are receiving threatening calls and, therefore, they
had approached the Superintendent of Police, Mewat, vide Annexures P-4
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this Order/Judgment
SANDEEP SETHI
2024.10.30 01:49
CRWP-10578-2024
and P-5 through an email dated 13.10.2024.
3. Issue notice of motion.
4. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and submits that the this is the second
criminal writ petition filed by the petitioners and first one was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh one with correct
Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1.
5. A perusal of the paper book demonstrates that the Aadhar Card
now annexed with the petition qua petitioner No.1 is absolutely dark and
seems to be an attempt to conceal the identity of petitioner No.1.
6. Further, it is not coming forth that where and when any threat
was given to the petitioners and while arguing, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that petitioners have threat from the children of
petitioner No.2 but in para 12 of the petition, it has been averred that the
children will remain in custody of petitioner No.2.
7. As regards the income of petitioner No.2, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 is holding 40 acres of land,
however, in the petition it is submitted that he is a mechanic and earning
Rs.55,000/-.
8. Apparently, petitioner No.2 is having 10 children from his first
marriage and now has got married to a girl who is 20 years younger to him.
Although, this Court is not going to deal with regard to the desires of the
petitioners, however, nothing is coming forth as to when and who
threatened the petitioners of their life and liberty.
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this Order/Judgment
CRWP-10578-2024
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Registry has raised
the objection with regard to the Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1 which is
annexed with the petition, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has
written a note that kindly put up as it is before the Bench.
10. A perusal of the Aadhar Card placed on record demonstrates
that it is absolutely dark and seems to be a purposeful act to conceal the
identity of petitioner No.1. Apparently, there is no threat coming forth in
the present petition and the same seems to be a cover up or an abuse of
process of law for some ulterior motive.
11. In light of the above, the present petition is dismissed with cost
of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited by the petitioners in the Poor Patients Welfare
Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within one month from today.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
he contains his prayer for protection of life and liberty only qua petitioner
No.1 as the main dispute is between petitioner No.2 and his brother and
children.
13. Considering the above, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall look into
the above aspect only qua petitioner No.1 and it is made clear in specific
terms that in case, there is any criminal case against the petitioners, this
order shall automatically become inoperative and shall not be a protection
at all as there cannot be an estoppels against law.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
October 30, 2024.
S. Sethi
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
SANDEEP SETHI
2024.10.30 01:49
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this Order/Judgment
