Rajasthan High Court
Poonam Kaur Daughter Of Jaswant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:8815) on 20 February, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:8815]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 297/2024
1. Poonam Kaur Daughter Of Jaswant Singh, Aged About 19
Years, Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi,
Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
2. Sunil Son Of Chandgeeram, Aged About 19 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Secretariat Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police (Dgp), Police Headquarters,
City-Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. District Collector, Deeg (Rajasthan)
4. Superintendent Of Police, District Deeg (Rajasthan)
5. Station House Officer, Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg
6. Dayal Singh Son Of Balwant Singh, Aged About 58 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
7. Manjeet Singh Son Of Dayal Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
8. Prem Singh Son Of Dayal Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
9. Jaswant Singh Son Of Balwant Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi,
Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
10. Pritam Singh Son Of Bhaktawar Singh, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi,
Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
11. Chinder Singh Son Of Surjeet Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
12. Jarnel Singh Son Of Sadhu Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 09:11:47 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:8815] (2 of 4) [CRLW-297/2024]
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
13. Gurmukh Singh Son Of Kishan Singh, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi,
Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
14. Kulwant Singh Son Of Veer Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
15. Baldev Son Of Ranjeet, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of
Village Gangora, Ps Pahadi, Tehsil Pahadi, District
Bharatpur Now Deeg
16. Hari Singh Son Of Naval Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
17. Prem Singh Son Of Mangal Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, Tehsil
Pahadi, District Bharatpur Now Deeg (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA-
cum-AAG with
Mr. Kirti Vardhan Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
20/02/2024
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
01.02.2024, but the private respondents and others are not happy
[2024:RJ-JP:8815] (3 of 4) [CRLW-297/2024]
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 imperative and it
cannot be waived off based on moral/legal validity of live-in
relationship.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General 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
[2024:RJ-JP:8815] (4 of 4) [CRLW-297/2024]
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,
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.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
119-Rahul Joshi
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
