SUKHDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OFFICE reports that the notice issued to respondent No. 4 has been received with the endorsement to the effect that he has not been found at the given address. Be that as it may, we proceed to dispose of the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE Petitioners have come up with the following prayers :- (i) to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to harass them at the behest of respondent No. 4 or his relatives/friends or any body else; (ii) respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to give protection to them and if any F.I.R. has been lodged against them, the same be directed to be placed on the record and quashed. The Petitioners assert, inter-alia, to this effect :- Petitioner No. 1 was born on 21.1.1986; Petitioner No. 2 was born on 20.1.1976; they fell in love with each other and after developing relations, they decided to marry; parents of Petitioner No. 1 became very angry and annoyed; however, they married on 1.3.2004 at Gurdwara Mohalla Prem Nagar, Khera Road, Phagwara, District Kapurthala; on that very day, the Petitioners went to the house of respondent No. 4 to have his blessings and other members of the family but they were threatened of dire consequences; they apprehend that some false complaint of the case may be registered by the Police against them; besides that, parents of Petitioner No. 1 might even kidnap Petitioner No. 1; the Police is totally under the influence of respondent No. 4 who has political powers; in view of their fear, they moved the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. On 21.4.2004, they came to know that First Information Report under Sections 366/376, I.P.C. has been registered against Petitioner No. 2 as well as his father and others, which, in view of the facts afore- mentioned, is liable to be quashed; the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella under Article 21 of the Constitution in regard to fundamental right and liberty; the Police is liable to pay compensation for illegal detention of the parents of Petitioner No. 2 on 21.4.2004 when they were picked up by the S.H.O. from his house.

(3.) HAVING perused the pleadings set forth in the Writ Petition and the Written Statement afore-mentioned and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.K. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in view of the clear-cut stand taken before us that Petitioner No. 1 was major and thereby entitled to have married as per her choice with Petitioner No. 2, we are of the view that no further direction of ours is required to be made.