Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Adults have the right to live together without interference from others, including their parents, and the police have no right to adopt coercive measures against them in the absence of an FIR.

Headnote:
MAJORITY - MARRIAGE - PROTECTION OF LIFE AND LIBERTY
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a couple, sought protection from the court as they feared for their lives due to threats and harassment from the private respondent and his family members. The petitioners claimed to be adults and living together out of their own free will, but their marriage was not registered.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were both adults and had the right to live together without interference from others, including their parents. The court also noted that the petitioners had not lodged any first information report (FIR) with the police and that the police had no right to adopt coercive measures against them.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, being adults, had the right to live together without interference from others?2. Whether the police had the right to adopt coercive measures against the petitioners in the absence of an FIR?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, which held that adults have the right to live together without interference from others, including their parents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection to the petitioners in case of any disturbance in their peaceful living. The court also granted liberty to the private respondent to file a recall application if the documents brought on record were fabricated or forged.

Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)

State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

GWALIOR BENCH

DIVISION BENCH

G.S. AHLUWALIA

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA J.J.

Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010

Ahmed Sayeed & Ors.

Vs.

State of M.P.

Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010

State of M.P.

Vs.

Ahmed Sayeed & Ors.

Shri R.K.S. Kushwaha, Counsel for Appellants No. 1 and 2

Shri Padam Singh with Shri Udaiveer Singh Counsel for Appellants

No. 3 and 4

Shri C.P. Singh Counsel for the State

Date of Hearing

: 21-12-2021

Date of Judgment

: 4/Jan/2022

Approved for Reporting

: Yes

Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)

State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)

Judgment

4^th- January-2022

Per G.S. Ahluwalia J.

By this common judgment, the Cr.A. No. 410/2010 and Cr.A.

No. 456 of 2010 shall be decided.

Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010 has been filed by Appellants Ahmed

Sayeed, Samim, Anees and Shakeel against the judgment and

sentence dated 13-4-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Sironj, Distt. Vidisha in S.T. No. 15/2004, by which the appellants

have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :

a. Under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. (On three counts for murder of

Fida Mohd., Abdul Azeez and Rabia bi) and sentenced to undergo

Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 6 months R.I., on

three counts ;

b. Under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. (On three counts for attempting to

kill Anwar, Johra bi, and Mohd. Khalil) and sentenced to undergo 7

years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months R.I., on three

counts ;

c. Appellant Ahmed Sayeed under Section 148 of I.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3

months R.I.

d. Appellants Samim, Anees and Shakeel under Section 147 of I.P.C.

and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3

Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)

State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)

months R.I.

All the sentences to run concurrently.

Whereas Cr.A. No.456/2010 has been filed by the State for

enhancement of sentence and for award of death penalty.

The necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are

that the complainant Gaffar Khan lodged a Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1 on

5-5-2003 at 10:25 A.M., on the allegations that he is the resident of

village Jhujhalakheda and is an agriculturist by profession. There

was a dispute between Abdul Azeez and Ahmed Sayeed on the

question of boundary of field. At about 8:00 A.M., Haneef Khan,

Munne bhai, Fida Bhai and the complainant had gone to amicably

settle the matter. Anees, Shakeel, Yusuf and Shamim, all sons of

Ahmed Sayeed were also there. The complainant, Munna bhai, Fida

Bhai and Haneef Bhai were affixing stones on the earthen boundary.

Ahmed Sayeed and his sons Anees, Samim, Yusuf and Shakeel started

abusing and scuffling. They were separated by the complainant and

others. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed and his sons ran towards their

house. Ahmed Sayeed came out along with his .12 bore gun.

Shakeel was following him along with a belt of cartridges. Shakeel,

Yusuf and Samim also came there and started shouting that all should

be killed. Ahmed Sayeed fired a gun shot causing injury to Khalil

who was standing in the courtyard of Ahmed Sayeed. He fell down

after sustaining gun shot injury. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed fired a

Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)

State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)

gun shot causing injury to Azeez, who also fell down after sustaining

gun shot injury. Azeez was standing in front of the house of

Munnawar. Rabia bi was also standing there, who also sustained gun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document