Pooja vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25878)
2024 Latest Caselaw 4980 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pooja vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25878) on 24 June, 2024

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:25878]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1284/2024

1.       Pooja D/o Prahlad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bhadawala,
         70 Rb, Tehsil Rasinghnagar, Dist. Anupgarh.
2.       Sunil Kumar S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 6, 21/23 Np, Thandi, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Dist.
         Anupgarh.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, Anupagarh, Rajasthan.
3.       The Station House Officer, Anupgarh, Rajasthan.
4.       Prahlad S/o Nanuram, R/o Bahdawala, 70 Rb, Tehsil
         Raisinghnagar, Dist. Anupgarh.
5.       Sahab Ram S/o Nanuram, R/o Bahdawala, 70 Rb, Tehsil
         Raisinghnagar, Dist. Anupgarh.
6.       Sohan Lal S/o Nanuram, R/o Bahdawala, 70 Rb, Tehsil
         Raisinghnagar, Dist. Anupgarh.
7.       Ishwar S/o Parhlad, R/o Bahdawala, 70 Rb, Tehsil
         Raisinghnagar, Dist. Anupgarh.
8.       Sohan S/o Shrichand, R/o 7 Lc, Tehsil Vijaynagar, Dist.
         Anupgarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Jayant Garg
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR (VACATION

JUDGE)

Order

24/06/2024

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.

[2024:RJ-JD:25878] (2 of 2) [CRLW-1284/2024]

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

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 (VACATION JUDGE)),J 7-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)