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 to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only, at this stage.

5. Mr. Tarunvir Singh Lehal, Addl. P.P. (UT), Chandigarh appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and waives service. She submits that on the basis of advance copy of the petition having been served, a preliminary inquiry was made at the address given in the petition. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have informed that petitioner No.1 is not living with them at the given address and as he was keeping bad company he was disowned by them long time ago. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 has wrongly described himself as guardian of petitioner No.2 and as such the petition on behalf of the said petitioner could not have been filed through petitioner No.1.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India stipulates protection of life and liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. As per the Constitutional mandate it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age or that petitioner No.2 is still a minor, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA-769-2021 titled Ishrat Bano and another vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 03.09.2021 held as under:-

“The aspect which we are considering and dealing with is with regard to the threat to the life and liberty to the appellants as has been asserted by them. No doubt, in case a criminal case is registered against any of the parties, the law should take its own course, however, the life and liberty of any person who has approached the Court with such a grievance need to be taken care of and the protection be provided as permissible in law. No person can be permitted or allowed to take law in his hands and therefore, keeping in view the said aspect, we dispose of the present appeal by observing that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Maler Kotla, shall take into consideration the representation dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the appellants and if some substance is found therein, take appropriate steps in accordance with law to ensure that the life and liberty is not jeopardized of the appellants at the hands of the private respondents. This direction shall not be construed in any manner to restrain the official respondents to proceed against the appellants in case there is some criminal case registered against them. The law shall take its own course and it shall be open to the authorities/investigating agency to proceed against the appellants, if required in law and in accordance th