[2025:RJ-JP:43748]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1386/2025

1. Santoshi D/o Shri Biranchi, Aged About 34 Years, Resi-

dent Of Bilangar, Orissa Presently R/o 145, Hari Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. Janak Singh Meena S/o Bharosi Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Irniya, District Karauli, Rajasthan. Pin 322234 ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur City ( South), Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. S.h.o. Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur City South, Jaipur, Rajasthan

5. Mahi Lal Meena S/o Girraj Meena, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Bhotwara, Ranoli, District Karauli, Ra-

jasthan. Pin 322220.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Yenu Satyan for Mr.Jai Kishan Yogi For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

31/10/2025

1. The instant petition has been preferred seeking directions against the State official-respondents for providing adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are facing grave threat to their life and personal liberty at the hands of the private respondent(s).

2. The contents of the petition indicate that the parties are living in live-in-relationship with each other, and as per the live-in- relationship agreement, the petitioner No.2 was earlier residing with one Mahipal and was having two issues from that relationship. It has been averred that their marriage was not solemnized, but subsequently, he started torturing her. Hence, she left her relationship and started residing with the petitioner No.1 and executed an agreement in this regard.

3. This Court is not going to enter the controversy as to whether the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the said Mahipal or not. However, looking to the fact that prior to approaching this Court, the parties have approached Nodal Officer/Superintendent of Police, Sodala and the concerned Station House Officer by way of filing representation seeking police protection in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Ra- jasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024, but no heed has been paid and the representation submitted by the parties has not been decided. Hence, under these compelling circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court.

4. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, KM reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the life and personal liberty of individuals has to be protected except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.

5. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition with directions to the Nodal Officer to examine the repre- sentation submitted by the petitioners along-with the contents of the live-in-relationship agreement and in case, it is found that the petitioner No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of Mahipal, then if necessitated, appropriate orders be passed for providing adequate security and protection to the petitioners in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Suman Meena (supra), after analyzing the threat perceptions.

6. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal writ pe- tition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending ap-

plications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /235 Power