Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhawana Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25874) on 24 June, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:25874]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1309/2024
1. Bhawana Purohit D/o Sh. Roshanlal Purohit W/o Mukesh
Shringi, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Purbiya Mohalla, Teh
Rashmi, Dist. Chittorgarh, Raj.
2. Mukesh Shringi S/o Sh. Premshankar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Near Jhiri Ke Hanuman Ji Temple, Ward No.
10, Kansuwa, Teh. Ladpura, Udyog Nagar, Dist. Kota, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Sp, Dist. Chittorgarh.
3. The Sp, Dist. Kota
4. The Sho, Ps Rashmi, Dist. Chittorgarh.
5. The Sho, Ps Ladpura, Udyog Nagar, Dist. Kota.
6. Roshan Lal Purohit S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Purbuya Mohalla,
Teh. Rashmi, Dist. Chittorgarh.
7. Chhitarmal Purohit S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Purbuya Mohalla,
Teh. Rashmi, Dist. Chittorgarh.
8. Sunil Purohit S/o Kaluram Purohit, R/o Kasara Khedi, Ps
Chanderiya, Teh. And Dist. Chittorgarh.
9. Raju Sukhwal S/o Rameshwar Sukhwal, R/o Kasara Khedi,
Ps Chanderiya, Teh. And Dist. Chittorgarh.
10. Ratan Lal Sukhwal S/o Chhagan Lal Sukhwal, R/o Kasara
Khedi, Ps Chanderiya, Teh. And Dist. Chittorgarh.
11. Prahlad Sukhwal S/o Chhagan Lal Sukhwal, R/o Kasara
Khedi, Ps Chanderiya, Teh. And Dist. Chittorgarh.
12. Shanti Lal Sukhwal S/o Prabhulal Sukhwal, R/o Kasara
Khedi, Ps Chanderiya, Teh. And Dist. Chittorgarh.
13. Manhish Purohit S/o Kalulal Purohit, Village Rashmi, Ps
Rashmi Dist. Chittorgarh.
14. Gopal Sukhwal S/o Unknown, R/o Village Meghras, Ps
Karohi, Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 08:38:40 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:25874] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1309/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Singh Badgujar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, 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.
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 respondents Nos.6 to 14. The petitioners allegedly
approached the respondent police 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
live-in-relationship agreement 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 Superintendent of Police to provide
protection to the petitioners deserves to be accepted.
The concerned Superintendent of Police shall have the
matter enquired into and if so required, appropriate protection
shall be provided to the petitioners as and when warranted. The
[2024:RJ-JD:25874] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1309/2024]
concerned Superintendent of Police 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.
A copy of this order be sent to the respondents forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR (VACATION JUDGE)),J
15-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
