SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1821

VIKAS SURI
Vikram Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. T. Chandigarh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Sachin Kalia, Mr. Tarunvir Singh Lehal Addl. Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh

Judgment

Mr. Vikas Suri, J.

The present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners threatened at the hands of respondent Nos.4 to 7.

2. The petitioners have not attained marriageable age. Petitioner No.1 claims to be about 19 years of age whereas petitioner No.2 is a minor aged 16 ½ years. It is pleaded that petitioner No.1 was born on 02.02.2004 and petitioner No.2 on 08.01.2007. It is stated that the petitioners are living in live-in relationship and want to marry each other against the wishes of their respective parents i.e. petitioner Nos.4 to 7. Reliance is placed upon the decision by a coordinate Bench of this Court, passed in CRM-M-38667-2016 titled Baljeet Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others , 2017(3) HLR 107.

3. Apprehending threat to their life and liberty the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 03.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) as well as to the S.H.O. Police Station I.T. Park, Chandigarh (respondent No.3), but to no avail.

4. Notice of motion t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top