Rajasthan High Court
Monu Devi D/O Rajaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:35029) on 20 August, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:35029]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1704/2024
1. Monu Devi D/o Rajaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Partapur, District Alwar (Rajasthan).
2. Kaushal Kumar Sharma S/o Hariprakash Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Partapur, Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Alwar.
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Mandhan,
District Kotputli- Behror.
5. Praveen Kumar S/o Suresh, Resident Of Village Partapur,
Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli- Behror.
6. Suresh S/o Khubram, Resident Of Village Partapur, Tehsil
Neemrana, District Kotputli- Behror.
7. Sonu S/o Rajaram, Residing At Village Dugera, Tehsil
Neemrana, District Kotputli- Behror.
8. Rajaram S/o Budhram, Residing At Village Dugera, Tehsil
Neemrana, District Kotputli- Behror.
9. Devendra S/o Rajveer, Residing At Village Morpur, Tehsil
Bawal, District Rewari,haryana.
10. Santosh W/o Devendra, Residing At Village Morpur, Tehsil
Bawal, District Rewari,haryana.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
20/08/2024
1. Heard and considered.
2. Vide the judgment dated 02.08.2024 in S.B. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 792/2024 titled as Suman Meena & Anr. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., this Court issued directions
[2024:RJ-JP:35029] (2 of 2) [CRLW-1704/2024]
specifying the mechanisms/remedies which may be invoked by the
person(s) who seek the implementation of measures to ensure
their safety, on account of extra-legal threats to their lives or
liberty from other social actors or groups. Therefore, the matter is
no longer res integra, and is squarely covered by the directions of
this Court in the judgment of Suman Meena (supra).
3. This Court observes that in the present case, the
petitioner(s) has/have failed to comply with the directions of this
Court in the judgment of Suman Meena (supra). Further, the
Registry has failed to ensure that the petition includes due
pleadings and a footnote disclosing the details which indicate that
the alternative efficacious remedies have already been availed of
in accordance with the directions of this Court in Suman Meena
(supra).
4. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment pronounced in Suman
Meena (supra), the instant petition is disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) to
ensure compliance with the directions issued by this Court in
Suman Meena (supra) regarding the contents of the petitions
wherein directions are sought pertaining to protection.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK/22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
