Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Teepu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41181) on 8 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:41181]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2130/2024
1. Teepu D/o Sava Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Village Borla
Jatan, Ogala, Tehsil Sedwa, Distt. Barmer.
2. Joga Ram S/o Natha Ram Ji, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Kernada, Tehsil Chouhtan, Distt. Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Raj., Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.
3. The Sho, P.s. Gudamalani, Distt. Barmer.
4. Sukha Ram S/o Late Shri Lachha Ram, Village Berigoav,
Gudamalani, Distt. Barmer.
5. Hemi Devi W/o Late Shri Lachha Ram, Village Berigoav,
Gudamalani, Distt. Barmer.
6. Ganesha Ram S/o Late Shri Lachha Ram, Village
Berigoav, Gudamalani, Distt. Barmer.
7. Mangla Ram S/o Moti Ram, Village Berigoav, Gudamalani,
Distt. Barmer.
8. Sava Ram S/o Prahlad Ram, Village Borla Jatan, Ogala,
Tehsil Sedwa, Distt. Barmer.
9. Pura Ram S/o Jagmal Ram, Village Kernada, Tehsil
Chouhtan, Distt. Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Inda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
08/10/2024
1. Petition herein, inter-alia, is for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect
[2024:RJ-JD:41181] (2 of 4) [CRLW-2130/2024]
the life and liberty of petitioners as they apprehended threat at
the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 9.
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 with one
Sukhram. 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, respondent Nos.4 to 9 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. Mr. Vikram
Rajpurohit, PP appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State of Rajasthan. He submits that he 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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned PP.
6. 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:-
"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
[2024:RJ-JD:41181] (3 of 4) [CRLW-2130/2024]
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."
7. 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
[2024:RJ-JD:41181] (4 of 4) [CRLW-2130/2024]
verified, as he may like, the contents of the petition, particularly
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
213-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
