Vidya Kavarsing Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8823 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36803]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1840/2023

1. Vidya Kavarsing Panwar D/o Moti Singh, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Mupat, Tehsil Silod, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra. Present R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas Korta, Police Station Sumerpur, Dist. Pali (Raj.)

2. Pratap Ram S/o Mala Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas Korta, Police Station Sumerpur, Dist. Pali (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Pali, Rajasthan.

4. The S.h.o., Police Station Sumerpur, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.

5. Ganjand Mahale S/o Moti Singh, B/c Rjaput, R/o Mupat, Tehsil Silod, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

6. Kanwar Singh Panwar S/o Ram Singh Panwar, B/c Rajput, R/o Vetala, Badoda, Wadhode, Jalgaon, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

7. Dilip Chandan Singh S/o Unknown, B/c Rajput, R/o Satara, Tehsil Silod, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

8. Yes Dilip Chandan Singh S/o Dilip Chandan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Satara, Tehsil Silod, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

9. Ranjana W/o Late Shri Jeetu Patil, R/o Panchora, Tehsil Silod, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

10. Suman W/o Ram Singh Panwar, R/o Vetala, Badoda, Wadhode, Jalgaon, District Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

11. Nawal Singh S/o Ram Singh Panwar, B/c Rajput, R/o Vetala, Badoda, Wadhode, Jalgaon, District Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

12. Deepak S/o Ram Singh Panwar, B/c Rajput, R/o Vetala, Badoda, Wadhode, Jalgaon, District Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

[2023:RJ-JD:36803] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1840/2023]

13. Akshay S/o Anil Patil, R/o Panchora, Tehsil Silod, Dist.

Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. R.R. Anikya
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. A.R. Choudhary, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

30/10/2023

1. The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition for

protection of their life and personal liberty.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the

material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the

petitioners are major and they are living in a live-in-relationship

and in this regard, they have executed an agreement on

15.08.2023, but the private respondents and others are not happy

with their relationship and they are threatening the petitioners.

Private respondents have no right to harass the petitioners and to

take the law in their hands. Given that their life and liberty is in

danger, police protection may be granted to them. Reliance has

been placed upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Leela v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5045/2021 decided on

15.09.2021) wherein it was held that the right to claim

protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is

[2023:RJ-JD:36803] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1840/2023]

imperative and it cannot be waived off based on moral/legal

validity of live-in relationship.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions

may be issued.

5. In view of the order intended to be passed in the petition,

being non-prejudicial to the private respondents, no notices are

required against them.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP [AIR

2006 SC 2522], S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010) 5

SCC 600], Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755]

and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM & Ors. [(2018) 16 SCC

368] that the society cannot determine how individuals live their

lives, especially when they are major, irrespective of the fact that

the relation between two major individuals may be termed as

immoral and unsocial. Thus, life and personal liberty of the

individuals has to be protected except according to procedure

established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution

of India. Further, as per Section 29 of Rajasthan Police Act, 2007

every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of

the citizens.

8. Therefore, in light of above legal position and after hearing

learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of

the case, since the petitioners apprehend threat to their right of

life and liberty, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioners have every right to seek the protection of their life,

[2023:RJ-JD:36803] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1840/2023]

limb and liberty; and therefore, persuaded to dispose of the

present petition with the direction to the petitioners to appear

before the concerned Superintendent of Police along with

appropriate representation regarding their grievance. The

concerned Superintendent of Police shall in turn hear the

grievance of the petitioners, and after analyzing the threat

perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide

adequate security and protection to the petitioners.

9. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not

affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the

petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as the stay petition

stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 6-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)