HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6852/2022

1.

Hemlata Wife Of Shri Amit D/o Giriraj Nayak, Aged About

19 Years, R/o 52, Ekta Colony, Vishvakarma Industrial

Area-17, Jaipur (Raj). (Presently Residing At R/o 52 Ekta

Colony, Vishvakarma Industrial Area-17, Jaipur Raj. ).

2.

Amit Son Of Shri Veero, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward

No. 6, Jato Ka Mohalla, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj).

(Presently Residing At R/o 52 Ekta Colony, Vishvakarma

Industrial Area-17, 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, Jaipur.

5.

Station House Officer, Police Station Vki No. 5, District

Jaipur (Raj).

6.

Giriraj Nayak Son Of Shri Puran Ji, R/o Ekta Colony,

Vishvakarma Industrial Area-17, Jaipur (Raj).

7.

Indra Nayak Wife Of Shri Giriraj Nayak, R/o Ekta Colony,

Vishvakarma Industrial Area-17, Jaipur (Raj).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Shiv Prakash Dhanera

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. GS Rathore, GA cum AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

03/08/2022

1.

Heard the parties.

(2 of 4)

[CRLMP-6852/2022]

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 registered

marriage with each other. Their marriage certificate 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, 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

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.”

(3 of 4)

[CRLMP-6852/2022]

7.

In Navtej Singh Johar (supra) The Hon’ble Supreme Court

further said :-

“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 morality.”

In a constitutional democracy like ours where

the rule of law prevails, must not be allowed

to be trampled by obscure notions of social

morality which have no legal tenability. The

concept of constitutional morality would serve

as an aid for the Court t