HARDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioners are present in person in the Court and identified by their counsel. The petitioners seek protection to their life and liberty.

(2.) They have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') alleging that they being of marriageable age, got married with each other. The petitioners claim that their marriage is legal. The private respondents are not accepting the marriage of the petitioners alleging it to be against the social norms. The petitioners tried to persuade their parents and relatives but remained unsuccessful in their endeavour. The private respondents, it is alleged, areAMIT hell -bent KUMAR 2015.12.21 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document to separate the petitioners from each other by resorting to illegal means. Thus, it has been pleaded that the petitioners are apprehending imminent danger to their life and liberty from the private respondents. Having been left with no other option, it has become the compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the petitioners are major in terms of the documents appended as Annexures P -1 and P -2. They have married each other of their own free will. Photographs of the marriage are appended as Annexure P -3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite the representation dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P -4), having been duly submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur -respondent No.2, no action is being taken thereon and the petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents No. 4 to 9.

(3.) The issue involved in the present case is a short one, that is to say, seeking only the protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. This issue, in fact, is no more res -integra. The law, in this regard, has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a catena of judgments including in the cases of A.K.Gopalan versus State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, Kartar Singh versus State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 and Lata Singh versus State of UP and anr. 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 870, which has been followed by this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar Singh versus State of Haryana 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 376. AMIT KUMAR 2015.12.21 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document It is pertinent to note here that about three decades after A.K.Gopalan's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court further widened the scope of Article 21, in the case of Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 thereby widening the scope of the law laid down in the A.K.Gopalan's case (supra). Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in long series of subsequent decisions, went on to explore the true meaning of the word "Life" in Article 21 and the recent one was rendered by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and others versus Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and others (2010) 3 SCC 571. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and careful perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant one is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, protects the most precious right of every citizen, it being the Right to life. In view of the constitutional mandate and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.K.Gopalan, Maneka Gandhi, Kartar Singh and Lata Singh (supra) followed by this Court in many cases including Pardeep Kumar Singh's case (supra), the petitioners are entitled to seek the protection to their life and liberty.