AMARDEEP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this writ petition for seeking appropriate directions against the respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide them appropriate protection at their native place. Apart from the aforementioned relief, the petitioners have also craved for a restraining order against respondents No. 4 to 10 for not interfering in their peaceful marital life. Apposite facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that both the petitioners are residents of same locality in Village 10 K.D. Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar (Raj.) and in due course of time developed affinity with each other. After Courtship for some time, the petitioners decided to enter into matrimony and for that purpose they jointly eloped from their native place, i.e., Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar (Raj.). Being major, both the petitioners, by their volition, solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj, Jodhpur on 17.06.2013 and a certificate to this effect was issued by Arya Samaj, Jodhpur. As a token of proof, photographs of marriage were also enclosed with the writ petition. After solemnizing marriage, both the petitioners shifted to Sadulsahar to enjoy their marital life, but the family members of the second petitioner did not approve their liaison. In these circumstances, family members of second petitioner solicited help of police and the second petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home. As a matter of fact, before this incident, a missing report was lodged at the behest of family members of the second petitioner and thereafter a FIR was also lodged against the first petitioner attributing offences punishable under Secs. 342, 366, 376, 468 and 120B IPC. Pursuant to the FIR No. 290/2013, statements of second petitioner, Gagandeep Kaur were also recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., and during investigation, the first petitioner was arrested. The first petitioner, thereafter, applied for bail and eventually he was released on bail by this Court.

(2.) IN the interregnum period, as both the petitioners were apprehending some untoward incidents and endanger to their life and liberty, a writ petition was filed by them jointly before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8492/2013, wherein prayer was made for extending them adequate protection. During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, the second petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home for the reasons stated hereinabove and the first petitioner was arrested pursuant to FIR No. 290/2013, the writ was not pursued and as such was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2013 Subsistence of matrimony between both the petitioners and persistence of first petitioner to bring back second petitioner at her matrimonial home aggravated acrimony between the family members of the second petitioner and the first petitioner. Acrimony took serious turn and when the petitioner attended the Court at Gharsana on 09.10.2013 with his friends, an attempt was made to cause him bodily harm by way of firing. The said incident was reported to the police and an FIR No. 430/2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 307, 341, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149 and 365 IPC and 27 of the 3Arms Act against the private respondents. Besides firing at the first petitioner, the family members of the second petitioner also threatened the second petitioner with dire consequences for her liaison and affinity with petitioner, Amardeep. In these circumstances, a complaint was lodged by the first petitioner against the family members of Gagandeep under Secs. 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. Some of the facts, which are necessary and germane to the matter, are that when the second petitioner was living with her parents after the alleged marriage, the first petitioner laid a petition for habeas corpus before this Court alleging therein that she has been unlawfully detained by her parents and other family members. The habeas corpus petition was registered as D.B. Civil Habeas Corpus Petition No. 281/2014. While issuing notices, Division Bench directed Police Authorities to produce Gagandeep Kaur before the Court. When Gagandeep Kaur appeared before the Court, the Court conferred with her in Camera and thereafter in presence of all concerned. During the proceedings, the second petitioner made a categorical statement that she is presently living with her maternal at Abohar and she is interested to live with her paternal and maternal families only. Taking into account said stand of the second petitioner, the habeas corpus petition filed by the first petitioner was dismissed by order dt. 21.01.2014.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.