Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Banti D/O Sh. Vijay Pal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21959) on 9 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:21959]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 959/2024
1. Smt. Banti D/o Sh. Vijay Pal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Near Chopal, Mandkola, Mandkola (217), Palwal,
Mandkola (Haryana). R/o Gram Gunsara, Police Station
Kumher, Tehsil Rarha District Deeg Division Rajasthan.
2. Vishnu Kumar S/o Sh. Jasmat Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Gram Gunsara, Police Station Bharatpur
District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Now New District Deeg). R/o
Gram Gunsara, Police Station Kumher, Tehsil Rarha
District Deeg Division Rajasthan.
----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, Kumher District
Deeg (Rajasthan).
5. Karmveer S/o Sh. Mahaveer, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Khandela, Tehsil Palwal, Police Station Chand Hat, Palwal
District Palwal (Haryana).
6. Mahaveer S/o Sh. Fateh Singh, R/o Khandela, Tehsil
Palwal, Police Station Chand Hat, Palwal District Palwal
(Haryana).
7. Harprasad S/o Sh. Sher Singh, R/o Bhul Ghadi, Police
Station Manth, District Mathura (U.p.)
8. Sahab Singh S/o Sh. Sher Singh, R/o Bhul Ghadi, Police
Station Manth, District Mathura (U.p.)
9. Rameshwar S/o Sh. Harprasad, R/o Bhul Ghadi, Police
Station Manth, District Mathura (U.p.)
10. Rameshwar S/o Sh. Harprasad, R/o Bhul Ghadi, Police
Station Manth, District Mathura (U.p.)
11. Satto S/o Sh. Harprasad, R/o Bhul Ghadi, Police Station
Manth, District Mathura (U.p.)
12. Monu S/o Sh. Harprasad, R/o Bhul Ghadi, Police Station
(Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:49:12 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21959] (2 of 4) [CRLW-959/2024]
Manth, District Mathura (U.p.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
09/05/2024
1. Petitioners are major and present in person. 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 petitioners were against it
therefore, the petitioners left with no other option then to leave
their house to reside together. Counsel further submits that
petitioners have entered into live-in-relationship 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.
Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 04-01-2019, the
[2024:RJ-JP:21959] (3 of 4) [CRLW-959/2024]
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
petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the
concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.
[2024:RJ-JP:21959] (4 of 4) [CRLW-959/2024]
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 /8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
