Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunder Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 179/2022
1. Sunder Devi W/o Baldev Singh D/o Bhera Ram, Aged
About 22 Years, Vpo Goluwala Sihagan, W.no. 12, P.s.
Goluwala Teh. Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh.
2. Baldev Singh S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo
Goluwala Sihagan, W.no. 12, P.s. Goluwala Teh. Pilibanga
Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Dept. Of
Home Affairs, Jaipur.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.
3. Station House Officer, P.s. Goluwala Dist. Hanumangarh.
4. Bhera Ram S/o Khayali Ram, Vpo Goluwala Sihagan,
W.no. 10, P.s. Goluwala Teh. Pilibanga Dist.
Hanumangarh.
5. Indraj S/o Munshi Ram, Harni Khurd, Neemwali Dhani,
P.s. Kariwala, Dist. Sirsa (Haryana).
6. Hanuman S/o Munshi Ram, Harni Khurd, Neemwali Dhani,
P.s. Kariwala, Dist. Sirsa (Haryana).
7. Navneet Nivad S/o Not Known, Ward No. 1, Village
Goluwala Sihagan, Teh. Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Charan (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
17/01/2022
This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners
with the following prayers :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and;
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-179/2022]
(i) the respondents-authorities be directed to provide
adequate Police protection to the petitioners.
(ii) If any FIR is lodged against the petitioners by the
Respondent Nos.4 to 7, the official respondents be
directed to give notice to the petitioners before taking
any action on the said FIR and they be further
restrained from taking any coercive action against the
petitioners.
(iii) Such other and further order/orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the interest
of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are major and as per their own will, they have married
to each other but the family members of the petitioner No.1 are
annoyed with their marriage and have threatened them with dire
consequences, therefore, adequate police protection be provided
to the petitioners.
After considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners and after taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that if the petitioners are having any apprehension regarding their
lives and liberty from the relatives of the petitioner No.1, they
may move appropriate representation before the Superintendent
of Police, Hanumangarh narrating their grievance. It is expected
that if any such representation is moved on behalf of the
petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh shall
consider the same and after analysing the threat perception, if
required so, may pass necessary orders.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-179/2022]
It is made clear that this order is not a proof of age and the
marriage of the petitioners and any observations made in this
order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated
against the petitioners at the instances of their relatives.
With these observations this criminal misc. petition is
disposed of.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
43-Arun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
