Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sugra Banu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42161)
2024 Latest Caselaw 9006 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9006 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 October, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sugra Banu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42161) on 16 October, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:42161]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2183/2024

1.       Sugra Banu W/o Ramu Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
         Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore,raj.
2.       Mahboob Khan S/o Usman Khan, Aged About 32 Years, R/
         o Thumbadi Par, Guda Balotan, Dist. Jalore
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
         Home Affairs, Jaipur,raj.
2.       The Superintendent Of Police, Dist. Jalore
3.       The Station House Officer, P.s. Bhinmal Dist. Jalore
4.       The Station House Officer, P.s. Ramseen, Dist. Jalroe
5.       Noor Mohammed S/o Unknown, R/o Sinkwada, Dist.
         Jalore
6.       Sabir S/o Noor Mohammed, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
7.       Abdul Khan S/o Noor Mohammed, R/o Sinkwada, Dist.
         Jalore
8.       Meher Khan S/o Bhure Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
9.       Ramjan Khan S/o Meher Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
10.      Ibrahim Khan S/o Meher Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
11.      Sumar Khan S/o Bhure Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
12.      Sadiq Khan S/o Sumar Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
13.      Daud Khan S/o Bhure Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
14.      Jalal Khan S/o Daud Khan, R/o Sinkwada, Dist. Jalore
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. D.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral) 16/10/2024

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:42161] (2 of 4) [CRLW-2183/2024]

the life and liberty of petitioners as they apprehended threat at

the hands of respondent Nos.5 to 14.

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

Ramu Khan. The petitioner No.2 is also married. No divorce has

been taken by them. In that sense, owing to their matrimonial

discord, petitioners are living together in an arrangement, what

they have termed as live-in-relationship.

3. Ever since they started living together, respondent Nos.5 to

14 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 to 4 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:42161] (3 of 4) [CRLW-2183/2024]

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, Jalore to verify/get

[2024:RJ-JD:42161] (4 of 4) [CRLW-2183/2024]

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 218-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter