HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5574/2022

1.

Manisha Yadav D/o Babu Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o

Dhani Mangli Johdi Sherpura, Khori, Jaipur (Raj.)

2.

Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Murlidhar, Aged About 30

Years, R/o Pratappura (Manoharpur), Tehsil Shahpura,

Jaipur (Raj.)

(Both Presently Residing At Pratappura (Manoharpur),

Tehsil Shahpura, Jaipur (Raj.))

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p.

2.

Director General Of Police, Phq, Jaipur.

3.

Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur.

4.

Superintendent Of Police, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

5.

Station House Officer, Police Station Shahpura, District

Jaipur.

6.

Station House Officer, Police Station Manoharpur, District

Jaipur.

7.

Babu Lal S/o Late Badri Prasad, R/o Dhani Mangli Johdi

Sherpura, Khori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

8.

Vikram Yadav S/o Babu Lal Yadav, R/o Dhani Mangli Johdi

Sherpura, Khori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

9.

Ramesh S/o Late Badri Prasad, R/o Dhani Mangli Johdi

Sherpura, Khori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

10.

Kamli Devi W/o Babu Lal, R/o Dhani Mangli Johdi

Sherpura, Khori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Imran Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

30/06/2022

1.

Heard the parties.

(2 of 4)

[CRLMP-5574/2022]

2.

This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section

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

petitioners.

3.

The petitioners are major and have entered into marriage

with each other. Supporting document of their marriage is on

the record. The petitioners have approached this court for

protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not

approving 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 by the aggrieved person then legal

recourse should be adopted and recourse can never 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

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

(3 of 4)

[CRLMP-5574/2022]

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, 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

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 mor