Rajasthan High Court
Seema Choudhary D/O Shri Hanuman Sahai, ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:44822) on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:44822]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 44/2024
1. Seema Choudhary D/o Shri Hanuman Sahai, W/o Laxman
Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Pacheriyo Ki Dhani,
Bhainsawa, Basri Kalan, Renwal District Jaipur At Present
R/o Mahadev Ki Dhani, Kalyanpura, Kaladera, District
Jaipur
2. Laxman Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Mahadev Ki Dhani, Kalyanpura,
Kaladera, District Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Superintendent Of Police, District Jaipur Rural
3. Sho, Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur
4. Sho, Police Station Renwal, District Jaipur
5. Hanuman Sahai Choudhary S/o Shri Kanaran, R/o
Pacheriyo Ki Dhani, Bhainsawa, Basri Kalan, Renwal
District Jaipur
6. Prem Devi W/o Hanuman Sahai Choudhary, R/o Pacheriyo
Ki Dhani, Bhainsawa, Basri Kalan, Renwal District Jaipur
7. Ashish Choudhary S/o Hanuman Choudhary, R/o
Pacheriyo Ki Dhani, Bhainsawa, Basri Kalan, Renwal
District Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravinder Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat with
Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
24/10/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:44822] (2 of 5) [CRLW-44/2024]
1. The instant petition is filed seeking protection from the State
authorities (police authorities), qua the married couples/live-in
relationship couples/senior citizens/ individuals, who are/had
facing/faced threats of extra-legal harassment and/or violence at
the hands of their family members/relatives/social actors or
groups.
2. In this regard, learned counsel for the State has relied upon
the 'paragraph no. 30' of the judgment dated 02.08.2024 in S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 titled as Suman Meena
& anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors, and has submitted
that in the said order categorical directions are spelled out, qua
the filing of representation before the three tier authorities i.e.
foremost before the police officer who shall be designated as the
'Nodal Officer', thereafter, if aggrieved/ unsatisfied then before the
concerned Superintendent of Police and if still the lis in question is
not settled, then before the appropriate level of the 'Police
Complaints authority', and the SOP i-6(40)iq-v-@e-v-@izseh ;q-@ikVZ
2@23@7831&7910 dated 05.09.2024. For the sake of convenience,
the crux of the relevant extract from the judgment dated
02.08.2024 is reproduced herein below, howsoever, it is advisable
that the directions enumerated in paragraph nos. 30.1 to 30.8 (at
length) be read/considered cautiously:
"30.7. The following flowchart represents the mechanism
delineated under paragraphs 30.1 to 30.6 of this
judgment:
Step 1: The applicant(s) apprehend(s) extra-
legal threats to their lives and liberty on the
part of other social actors/groups.
[2024:RJ-JP:44822] (3 of 5) [CRLW-44/2024]
Step 2: The applicant(s) may file a
representation before a designated Nodal
Officer, who may or may not have territorial
jurisdiction over the matter.
[In case the Nodal Officer before whom the
representation is filed does not have territorial
jurisdiction over the matter, the respective
Nodal Officer shall undertake the steps
specified in paragraph 30.2 of this judgment.]
Step 3: The respective Nodal Officer having
territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall
implement measures to ensure interim
protection for the applicant(s), if required, on
an immediate basis.
Step 4: The respective Nodal Officer having
territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall
consider the representation, afford an
opportunity of appearance and hearing to the
applicant(s) in-person or through an advocate,
and decide on the representation in
accordance with law within the upper limit of 7
days of the date of receiving the
representation.
Step 5: If aggrieved of the
decision(s)/inaction of the respective Nodal
Officer(s) as specified in steps 2 to 4, the
applicant(s) may file a representation before
the respective Superintendent of Police.
Step 6: The respective Superintendent of
Police shall consider and decide on the
representation in accordance with law within
the upper limit of 3 days of the date of
receiving the representation.
Step 7: If aggrieved of the decision/inaction
of the respective Superintendent of Police, the
applicant(s) may file a complaint before the
appropriate level of the 'Police Complaints
Authority'.
Step 8: Where (and only where) the
applicant(s) is/are aggrieved of the decision of
the respective Police Complaints Authority, or
the proceedings before the respective Police
Complaints Authority are not concluded within
a reasonable period of time, the applicant(s)
may invoke this Court's jurisdiction under
[2024:RJ-JP:44822] (4 of 5) [CRLW-44/2024]
Article 226 of the Constitution for compelling
reasons and in accordance with law."
3. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners approach the
Court, seeking protection and to ensure that their constitutional
and fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India are safeguarded. Considering the crucial
issue, pertaining to life and liberty of an individual, this Court after
an assiduous analysis, considering the contentions made by the
Bar, at large, and a catena of judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court over the years, had passed a judgment dated 02.08.2024 in
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 titled as Suman
Meena & anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
4. Upon considering the arguments averred by the learned
counsel representing the parties, considering judgments cited at
the Bar, with consensus drawn in-between the counsel
representing parties, the present order is passed on mutatis
mutandis basis. The present order is to be considered as a part
and parcel in toto with Suman Meena (Supra) and SOP dated
05.09.2024.
5. Vide the judgment dated 02.08.2024 in Suman Meena
(Supra), this Court had issued directions specifying the
mechanism/remedies which may be invoked by the person(s)
seeking grant of protection, or implementation of measures to
ensure their safety as enshrined under the provisions of Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it can be deduced that
with efflux of time, the instant matter(s) is/are rendered
infructuous, as upon pronouncement of Suman Meena (Supra)
[2024:RJ-JP:44822] (5 of 5) [CRLW-44/2024]
the lis in question in the instant matter(s) is no longer res integra
and is/are squarely covered by the directions of this Court in the
judgment of Suman Meena (Supra).
6. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to avail the alternative
efficacious remedy available, if the lis in question as on date
survives, strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court,
encapsulated in the judgment dated 02.08.2024 and the SOP
dated 05.09.2024.
7. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the
petitioners are directed to comply with afore-cited judgment and
avail the alternative efficacious remedy. Howsoever, considering
the facts and circumstances in toto, it is directed that the interim
order granted in the instant petition, if any, shall continue/be
operative, for a period of fortnight, from the date of passing of this
order.
8. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment pronounced in Suman
Meena (Supra) and SOP, the instant petition is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA/80
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
