HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1066/2023

1.

Mohan Lal Mehra S/o Mahaveer Prasad Mehra, Aged

About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Ramgarh, District Sikar,

(Raj.).

2.

Meenu Sahu D/o Mohit Ram Sahu, W/o Mohan Lal Mehra,

Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli,

Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Ward No. 4, Ramgarh,

District Sikar, (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home

Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,

Jaipur (Raj.).

3.

The Superintendent Of Police, Sikar, Dist-Sikar, Rajasthan.

4.

The Station House Officer, Police Station Dantaramgarh,

Sikar (Raj.)

5.

The Superintendent Of Police, Mungeli, Dist-Mungeli,

Chhattisgarh.

6.

The Station House Officer, Police Station Sargaon, District

Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

7.

Mohit Ram Sahu S/o Vishambhar Sahu, Aged About 58

Years, R/o Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

8.

Chetan S/o Mohit Ram Sahu, Aged About 22 Years, R/o

Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

9.

Anil Sahu S/o Bhajhara Ram Sahu, Aged About 30 Years,

R/o Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

10.

Netram S/o Bhajhara Ram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years,

R/o Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

11.

Jageshwar S/o Moti Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village

Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

12.

Moti Lal S/o Bhajhara Ram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years,

R/o Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

13.

Chabbi Lal S/o Moti Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village

Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

14.

Uma Bai Sahu W/o Mohit Ram Sahu, Aged About 45

(2 of 4)

[CRLW-1066/2023]

Years, R/o Village Bawli, Mungeli Baoli, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Anil Kumar

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

23/05/2023

1.

Heard the parties.

2.

This criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226

of The Constitution of India for protection to life and personal

liberty of the petitioners.

3.

The petitioners are major and have entered into marriage

with each other. Their marriage registration certificate is already

on the record. The petitioners have approached this court for

protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not

accepting and recognizing their marriage.

4.

The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals

cannot be infringed by taking the law in one’s hands. If there is

allegation of violation of law, the aggrieved person may take legal

recourse and no other step can be at the whim of anyone.

5.

In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1,

The Supreme Court said as follows:-

“The right to privacy enables an individual

to exercise his or her autonomy, away

from the glare of societal expectations.

The realisation of the human personality is

dependent on the autonomy of an

individual. In a liberal democracy,

recognition of the individual as an

autonomous person is an acknowledgment

of the State’s respect for the capacity of

(3 of 4)

[CRLW-1066/2023]

the individual to make independent

choices. The right to privacy may be

construed to signify that not only are

certain acts no longer immoral, but that

there also exists an affirmative moral right

to do them.”

6.

In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018 (16) SCC 368, The

Hon’ble Supreme Court said that “ the social values and morals

have their space but they are not above the constitutionally

guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional

and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is

ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible.”

7.

In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1,

The Supreme Court said as follows:-

“131. The duty of the constitutional courts is

to adjudge the validity of law on well-

established principles,