Kanchan Limba vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1043 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 283/2022

1. Kanchan Limba D/o Sh. Rajpal Limba, Aged About 18

Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 4, Netewala, Teh. And

Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

2. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Mal Ram, Aged About 34 Years, B/c

Kumhar, R/o Kedar Colony, Village 5 E Chhoti, Teh. And

Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of

Home Affairs, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar, Through

Govt. Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Station House Officer, P.s. Sadar, Dist. Sriganganagar

(Raj.).

4. Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Kashi Ram, Near New Madan

Cloth Store, Sukhwant Cinema Road, Purani Abadi, Sri

Ganganagar (Raj.).

5. Mahender S/o Kashi Ram, Near New Madan Cloth Store,

Sukhwant Cinema Road, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar

(Raj.).

6. Rajender S/o Hari Ram, Village Netewala, Teh. And Dist.

Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Singh Chouhan (through VC) Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-283/2022]

21/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed

by the petitioners with a prayer that the concerned police

authorities of District Sri Ganganagar i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3

may kindly be directed to provide police security to them as well

as the family of the petitioner No.2.

In this criminal misc. petition, in para No.3, it is mentioned

that the petitioner No.2 is already married, however, his wife

along with two children is living separately from him since last so

many years and the petitioner No.2 has filed a divorce petition

before the Family Court, Abohar, which is pending. It is further

averred in the petition that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and other

persons had approached the petitioners and threatened them with

dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the

petitioner No.2 though married and having two children is in love

with petitioner No.1 and want to live with her, however, the

relatives of his wife are opposing this move and are regularly

threatening the petitioners with dire consequences, therefore, the

life and liberty of the petitioners are in danger. It is also submitted

by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have

moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sri

Ganganagar seeking police protection but when no action has

been taken on the said representation, they have filed this petition

with a prayer to direct the Superintendent of Police and SHO, PS,

Sri Ganganagar to provide police protection to them.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc.

petition and argued that when the petitioner No.2 is already

married and his marriage is still in existence, he cannot be

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-283/2022]

granted police protection to marry another girl. Learned Public

Prosecutor has also argued that no specific details about the

actions of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been given in this

petition that is when, where and what time, the aforesaid

respondents have threatened the petitioners with dire

consequences. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that

though in this petition, it is mentioned that the relatives of the

petitioner No.1 i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 6 are threatening the

petitioners with dire consequences but the counsel for the

petitioners, in his arguments, has alleged that the relatives of his

wife are threatening them but the said relatives of his wife have

not been made as party respondents in this petition. Learned

Public Prosecutor has also submitted that there is no proof

regarding the fact that the petitioners ever moved any

representation before the Superintendent of Police, Sri

Ganganagar and if so moved, then, when the representation was

received by the said authority. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus,

prayed that no case for granting the reliefs as prayed for is made

out in this criminal misc. petition, therefore, the same is liable to

be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that petitioner No.2 is married having two children and

has already filed a divorce petition seeking divorce from his wife,

which is pending consideration before the Family Court, Abohar. It

is noticed that in the so called representation (Annex./3), said to

have been submitted by the petitioners to the Superintendent of

Police, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioners have neither mentioned the

factum of marriage of respondent No.2 nor pendency of the

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-283/2022]

divorce petition. In the said representation, it is mentioned that

the relatives of the petitioner No.1 are not agreeing with the

marriage of the petitioners, therefore, they had assaulted her and

as such, police protection may be provided to the petitioners but

there is no mention about the relative of wife of petitioner No.2.

It is very interesting that learned counsel for the petitioners

in his submissions has alleged that the relatives of the petitioner

No.2 are threatening the petitioners with dire consequences,

however, in the petition as well as in the representation (Annex.3)

it is mentioned that the relatives of the petitioner No.1 are

threatening the petitioners with dire consequences, as such, no

allegations have been levelled against the relatives of the wife of

the petitioner No.2 nor any such averment is made in this petition

and they have not been impleaded as party respondents in this

petition.

Though the petitioners have annexed copy of the

representation (Annex.3) said to have been submitted by them

before the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganager, however, it is

nowhere mentioned in the petition that as to when the said

representation was received by the Superintendent of Police, Sri

Ganganagar.

After taking into overall facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner No.2 is

already married and his marriage has not been dissolved, no

police protection can be provided to the petitioner No.2 to

solemnise second marriage with the petitioner No.1. If the

petitioner No.2 is allowed to solemnize second marriage, without

annulment of his first marriage, the same would be an illegal act,

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-283/2022]

which cannot be allowed to take place by this Court while

exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc.

petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 80-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)