Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naini Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8840) on 20 February, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:8840]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 359/2024
1. Naini Devi W/o Prakash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Purohito Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
2. Rakesh Paliwal S/o Kesa Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Lohari Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural.
3. Sho, Luni, P.s. Dist. Jodhpur.
4. Prakash S/o Banshilal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
5. Banshilal S/o Dhanji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
6. Babulal S/o Pemaram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
7. Pukhraj S/o Radhakishan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
8. Omprakash S/o Tejaram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
9. Pappa Ram S/o Jagaram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
10. Badridas S/o Foosdas, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
11. Meghraj S/o Pemaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Bhandiyawas, Dist. Balotra.
12. Pukhraj S/o Pemaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Bhandiyawas, Dist. Balotra.
13. Lunaram S/o Champalal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kudi,
Pachpadara, Dist. Balotra.
14. Madan S/o Banshilal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Modi
Joshiyan, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 08:58:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8840] (2 of 3) [CRLW-359/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Bidan Halu
Ms. Sunita Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
20/02/2024
The criminal writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
direction for being provided with adequate security and protection.
The petitioners both being major persons claim to be in a live
in relationship. They submit that they are living with each other
against the wishes of their parents and thus, they feel threat at
the hands of private respondents, who are their relatives. The
petitioners allegedly approached the concerned respondent
authorities with a prayer to be provided with adequate protection
but no heed has been paid to their request so far.
The documents pertaining to the age of the petitioners and
an ikrarnama verifying the factum of them being in a live in
relationship have been filed on record. Thus, taking cue from the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522,
the prayer made by the petitioners for directing the concerned
respondent authorities to provide protection to the petitioners
deserves to be accepted.
The concerned respondent authorities shall have the matter
enquired into and if so required, appropriate protection shall be
provided to the petitioners as and when warranted. The concerned
[2024:RJ-JD:8840] (3 of 3) [CRLW-359/2024]
respondent authorities shall ensure that no harm is caused to the
petitioners, who are in a live in relationship.
The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
145-Hanuman/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
