Rajasthan High Court
Reena Rani W/O Sh. Banshi Lal, D/O Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:20704) on 2 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:20704]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 883/2024
1. Reena Rani W/o Sh. Banshi Lal, D/o Sh. Kishore Kumar,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No. 231, Village
Kharkhara (121) District Hisar (Haryana) At Present R/o
Village Damara, Police Station Januthar, District Bharatpur
(Now New District Deeg) (Raj.).
2. Gordhan Singh S/o Sh. Yadram Singh, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Damara, Police Station Januthar,
District Bharatpur (Now New District Deeg) (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Deeg District Deeg (Raj.)
4. The Station House Officer Police Station, Januthar, District
Deeg (Rajasthan).
5. Banshi Lal S/o Sh. Khushiram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
House No. 231, Village Kharkhara (121), Tehsil And Police
Station Barwada, District Hisar (Haryana)
6. Hemraj S/o Sh. Khushiram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
House No. 231, Village Kharkhara (121), Tehsil And Police
Station Barwada, District Hisar (Haryana)
7. Naresh S/o Sh. Khushiram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
House No. 231, Village Kharkhara (121), Tehsil And Police
Station Barwada, District Hisar (Haryana)
8. Sonu S/o Sh. Khushiram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
House No. 231, Village Kharkhara (121), Tehsil And Police
Station Barwada, District Hisar (Haryana)
9. Sunil S/o Sh. Khushiram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
House No. 231, Village Kharkhara (121), Tehsil And Police
Station Barwada, District Hisar (Haryana)
10. Harish Chand S/o Sh. Khushiram, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o House No. 231, Village Kharkhara (121), Tehsil And
Police Station Barwada, District Hisar (Haryana)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:44:47 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:20704] (2 of 4) [CRLW-883/2024]
11. Praveen S/o Hansraj, R/o Village Toba Dhani, Tehsil
Fatehbad District Fatehbad (Haryana).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh
Mr. Anoop Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
02/05/2024
1. Petitioners are present in person and they have duly been
identified by their counsel.
2. Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of
necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate
security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing
grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private
respondent.
3. Counsel for petitioners submits that both the petitioners are
mature enough to take decision of their life. Counsel submits that
petitioners have decided to live together in the company of each
other and the family members of the petitioners were against it
therefore, the petitioners were left with no other option then to
leave their house to reside together. Counsel further submits that
petitioners have entered into live-in-relationship on 24.04.2024
and executed the deed of live-in-relationship.
4. Pursuant the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Navtej
Singh Johar V. Union of India [(2018)10 SCC 1] and of this
court in Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr.
[2024:RJ-JP:20704] (3 of 4) [CRLW-883/2024]
Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 04-01-2019, the
State Government through Director General of Police issued a
Circular dated 18-01-2019 and appointed Nodal Officer at every
Police Station in the State of Rajasthan for ventilation of
grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate
protection. Life and liberty is fundamental right of every citizen
being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petitioners
deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.
5. Similar to the married couple, petitioners, who are major and
willingly living in relationship, without entering into marriage, also
cannot be denied protection of their life and liberty since it is
fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as has been observed by this Apex Court in
case of S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600] and
Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India [(2019)3 SCC 39]. Thus,
petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in
accordance with law.
6. In view of above, however, this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction is not inclined to enter into examining the validity of
marriage/legality of relationship of parties, therefore does not
render any affirmation of legality and validity of the status of
parties, under which they are living together, but keeping in mind
the proposition of law set forth by the Apex Court in catena of
judgments and in order to protect fundamental rights of parties
for their life and liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, this
[2024:RJ-JP:20704] (4 of 4) [CRLW-883/2024]
petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the
concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.
7. In case petitioners move any application, it is expected from
the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action for not
allowing to illegally hinder in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners
by private respondent, who is not agreeable to the relationship of
petitioners, but after verifying the fact, if required.
8. However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the
civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.
9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J
LALIT MOHAN /5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
