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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15128

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANUROOP SINGHI
CHHAMMA SAHU D/O SHRI RAMKARAN SAHU WIFE OF SHRI SURAJ GOSWAMI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLW / 720 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:20107]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 720/2026

1. Chhamma Sahu D/o Shri Ramkaran Sahu, Wife Of Shri

Suraj Goswami, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of

Undaliya Ki Dungri, Shiv Colony, Bundi, District Bundi

(Raj). At Present Resident Of Shiv Colony, Bundi (Raj).

2. Suraj Goswami Son Of Shri Pappu Goswami, Aged About

24 Years, Resident Of Shiv Colony, Bundi, Police Station

Sadar Bundi, District Bundi (Raj).

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

Home Affairs And Justice, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj).

2. Superintendent Of Police, Bundi, District Bundi (Raj).

3. Nodal Officer, Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi

(Raj).

4. S.h.o. Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi (Raj).

5. Ramkaran Sahu Son Of Late Kajod Sahu, Resident Of

Undaliya Ki Dungri, Shiv Colony, Bundi, District Bundi

(Raj).

6. Smt. Vimla Wife Of Ramkaran Sahu, Resident Of Undaliya

Ki Dungri, Shiv Colony, Bundi, District Bundi (Raj).

7. Deepak Son Of Shri Ramraj, Resident Of Undaliya Ki

Dungri, Shiv Colony, Bundi, District Bundi (Raj).

8. Pappu Teli Son Of Not Known, Resident Of Kherkata

Basoli, District Bundi (Raj).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishnu Bohra

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

12/05/2026

1. The defects as pointed out by the Registry are over-ruled.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 08:06:26 AM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 03:51:04 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:20107] (2 of 4) [CRLW-720/2026]

2. Both the petitioners who are present in-person before this

Court are major and in support of their date of birth, copies of

Class X Marksheet and/or Aadhaar card have been filed as

Annexure No.1.

3. Petitioners have also been duly identified by their counsel.

4. By virtue of the present criminal writ petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have

sought protection of their life and personal liberty from private

respondent Nos.5 to 8, as they are apprehending danger to their

life and liberty from the said private respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have solemnized their marriage on 05.05.2026

(Annexure-2) and the same has been duly registered in the Office

of Marriage Registration Officer, Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Jaipur,

Rajasthan. Learned counsel further submits that the private

respondents and others are not happy with their marriage and the

petitioners are receiving continuous threats.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the

petitioners are major and are mature enough to take independent

decision of their life.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once

the petitioners have willingly and with utmost responsibility have

chosen to solemnize their marriage, the private respondents have

no right to harass, much less threaten the petitioners and take law

in their hands and given the fact that the life and liberty of the

petitioners is in danger, police protection deserves to be granted

to the petitioners and hence, protection is being sought.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 08:06:26 AM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 03:51:04 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JP:20107] (3 of 4) [CRLW-720/2026]

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions

be issued.

9. As the order intended to be passed herein is non-prejudicial

to the private respondents, no notices are required to be issued to

them.

10. It is a well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported

in (2006) 5 SCC 475, Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India

reported in (2018) 7 SCC 1992 and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan

KM & Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368, that the right of two

consenting adults to marry a person of their choice is a

fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of

India. It has been consistently held that the autonomy of

individuals in matters of marriage and personal relations cannot

be curtailed by

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 Back to top