Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 1176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manoj Bajaj, J.
Ramandeep Kaur & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
Cr W P No. 6403 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Mandeep Singh, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of specific complaints to the police and ongoing talks for an amicable settlement in considering the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Protection for Marriage - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking protection for the petitioners' life and liberty, as it found that the association of the petitioners was known to the private respondents for a long time, and there was no specific complaint made to the police prior to the representation submitted. The court also noted that the talks regarding compromise between the parties were ongoing, indicating a possibility of an amicable settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions for protection of their life and liberty and to restrain private respondents from interfering in their peaceful life, citing threats and likelihood of false implication in a case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the association of the petitioners was known to the private respondents for a long time, and no specific complaint was made to the police prior to the representation submitted. The court also noted ongoing talks for an amicable settlement.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioners' claim of threats and likelihood of false implication, and the request for directions for protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of specific complaint to the police prior to the representation submitted, the ongoing talks for an amicable settlement, and the absence of grounds for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as no ground was made out for the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Bajaj, J. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 for providing protection to their life and liberty and further restraining private respondents from interfering in their peaceful life.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the petitioners knew each other for last about two years and they decided to marry, however, their alliance was not accepted by the family members of petitioner No.1. According to him, the petitioners performed the marriage with their free will and informed the private respondents, who have extended threats to the petitioners. He has further submitted that they are likely to implicate the petitioners in a false case. Learned counsel has pointed out that in this regard, a representation dated 06.07.2021 (Annexure P-5) has already been submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, however, till date no action has been taken. He prays for issuance of necessary directions.
3. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that the talks regarding compromise between the parties are going on and there seems a possibility that the parties may arrive at an amicable settlement.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the above background of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the association of the petitioners is known to private respondents for a long time and prior to the present representation dated 06.07.2021 (Annexure P-5), no complaint whatsoever was made by petitioners to the Police.
5. A reading of the representation also makes it clear that same is vague and lacking material particulars regarding the alleged threat. Even if it is assumed that the private respondents are likely to lodge a complaint against the petitioners, it cannot be construed as a threat as they are also free to avail their remedy in law in case they feel that some offence has been committed.
6. Above all, parties are in touch with each other for an amicable settlement, therefore, it is clear that petition is completely misplaced.
7. Resultantly, no ground is made out for exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
8. Dismissed.
