Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40694) on 1 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:40694]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2104/2024
1. Devi D/o Sh. Naga Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Singodiya, Harkhali, Barmer, At Present R/o Sarno Ki
Dhani, Kasumbla Bhatiyana, Kasumbla Bhanti, Barmer.
2. Prem Prakash Choudhary S/o Sh. Thanaram, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Sarno Ki Dhani, Kasumbla Bhatiyana,
Kasumbla Bhanti, Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Sp, Barmer.
3. The Sho, Ps Gida, Barmer.
4. Naga Ram S/o Sh. Rugharam, R/o Singodiya, Harkhali, Ps
Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
5. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Naga Ram, R/o Singodiya, Harkhali,
Ps Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
6. Rama Ram S/o Sh. Naga Ram, R/o Singodiya, Harkhali,
Ps Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
7. Amar Lal S/o Sh. Bhura Ram, R/o Lapla Kosriya Baytu,
Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.S. Sisodiya.
Mr. Naresh Charniya.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
01/10/2024
1. Petition herein, inter-alia, is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect
the life and liberty of petitioners as they apprehended threat at
the hands of private respondent Nos.4 to 7.
[2024:RJ-JD:40694] (2 of 4) [CRLW-2104/2024]
2. Facts, as pleaded in the petition succinctly are that
petitioners are major and have been living together in a
relationship for past few days. Petitioner No.1 is married and
Petitioner No.2 is unmarried. No divorce has been taken by the
petitioner No.1. In that sense, owing to her matrimonial discord,
petitioners are living together in an arrangement, what they have
termed as live-in-relationship.
3. Ever since they started together, private respondent Nos.4
to 7 have been threatening them with dire consequences.
Apprehension is that relatives of the petitioners may take law into
their own hands and even kill both petitioners by tracing them
from wherever they are.
4. On advance service of copy of petition. Ms. Sonu Manawat,
PP appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State
of Rajasthan. She submits that she has no objection in case
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are directed to look into the matter on the
aspect of threat perception and to take appropriate action, in
accordance with law.
5. Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity
to seek any return by the official respondents or even to serve the
private respondent Nos.4 to 7.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor.
7. In the context of instant case, reference may be had to
Punjab & Haryana High court judgment in Kanti and another Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. : CRWP-7908/2023 decided on
12.10.2023, wherein it is observed thus:-
[2024:RJ-JD:40694] (3 of 4) [CRLW-2104/2024]
"8. The key issue at hand is not the legality of the petitioners'
relationship, qua which they may be liable for civil as well as
criminal consequences in accordance with law, but whether
they are entitled to protection of their fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Must their right to live
be upheld, irrespective of their self-proclaimed live in
relationship, which on the face of it appears to be
adulterous? Pertinently, the couple herein fears for their
safety not from society or State, but from the family members
of petitioner no. 1. The answer to the aforesaid questions, in
the words of Lord J. Denning, simply is, "Be you ever so
high, the law is above you". In a nation governed by the Rule
of Law, as a citizen you must not and cannot take the law
unto your own hands.
9. Adjudication thus warranted now is, whether an
appropriate direction or order ought to be passed to allay the
apprehensions of the petitioners to save their lives. Must they
pay with their lives for defying the matrimonial or other
relevant penal laws ? For, most certainly, death is not the
penalty for such a defiance, that too at the hands of the
family members! Constitutional Fundamental Right under
Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher
pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme
it must be protected, regardless of the legitimacy of
relationship and/or even the absence of any marriage
between the parties. There may be situations when two
consenting adults, already married, but are living together
without taking divorce; or not earlier married though adults
but not of marriageable age; or being of marriageable age
though not married but living together in courtship before
they decide to get married or simply want to be live in
partners without marriage or any other likewise situation.
Appropriate laws exist for dealing with cases arising out of
such defiance of the matrimonial or other relevant penal
laws, as the case may be, and the law shall take its own
course, which inter alia includes criminal prosecution, if
there is any offence made out.
10. It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the
Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life
and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be
treated on highest pedestal and cannot be taken away except
in accordance with law. Irrespective of the nature of their
relationship, the police force being the protective arm of the
State is under a duty to protect the citizens' life. Accordingly,
petitioners herein cannot also be deprived of their said
fundamental right."
8. As an upshot, without commenting upon the legality of the
relationship between the petitioners or expressing any opinion on
the merits of their apprehensions, petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer to verify/get
verified, as they may like, the contents of the petition, particularly
[2024:RJ-JD:40694] (4 of 4) [CRLW-2104/2024]
the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, proceed in
accordance with law and, if deemed fit, provide necessary
protection qua their life and liberty.
(ARUN MONGA),J
288-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
