HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3999/2022

1.

Pinky W/o Shri Ankit Kumar D/o Shri Rakesh Singh, Aged

About 18 Years, R/o D-539, JJ Camp Tigri, South Delhi,

Delhi, Presently Residing At Plot No. 61, Gautam Nagar,

Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302015.

2.

Ankit Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o

C-47, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, South Delhi,

Delhi, Presently Residing At Plot No. 61, Gautam Nagar,

Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2.

The Commissioner Of Police, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3.

The S.H.O. Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur,

Rajasthan.

4.

Rakesh Singh S/o Shri Babu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 50

Years, R/o D-539, JJ Camp Tigri, South Delhi, Delhi.

5.

Laxmi Devi W/o Rakesh Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o

D-539, JJ Camp Tigri, South Delhi, Delhi

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Tushar Panwar

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

24/05/2022

1.

This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for protection to life and personal liberty of the petitioners.

2.

The petitioners are major and have entered into registered

marriage. The petitioners have approached this court for

protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not

approving and recognizing their marriage.

(2 of 4)

[CRLMP-3999/2022]

3.

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 by the aggrieved person then legal

recourse should be adopted and recourse can never be at the

whim of anyone.

4.

In number of judicial pronouncement the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that:-

“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

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.”

5.

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. The privacy of that freedom which is ingrained

in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible.”

5.

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, namely, legislative

competence or violations of fundamental

rights or of any other constitutional

provisions. At the same time, it is expected

from the courts as the final arbiter of the

(3 of 4)

[CRLMP-3999/2022]

Constitution to uphold the cherished

principles of the Constitution and not to be

remotely guided by majoritarian view or

popular perception. The Court has to be

guided by the conception of constitutional

morality and not by the societal morality.

132. We may hasten to add here that in the

context of the issue at hand, when a penal

provision is challenged as being violative of

the fundamental rights of a section of the

society, notwithstanding the fact whether the

said section of the society is a minority or a

majority, the magna cum laude and creditable

principle of constitutional morality, in a

constitutional democracy like ours where the

rule of law prevails, must