235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRWP-2658-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 DIVANSHU AND ANOTHER …Petitioners V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Aditya Partap Singh, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Mani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. Mr. Mandeep Nehra, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 6. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) Petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of petitioners at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 6. On 19.03.2025 following order was passed: “The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the protection of life and liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 6 by asserting that they are living in a live-in relationship. Interestingly, a live-in relationship agreement by way of an affidavit has also been executed by the girl as well as the boy, which is not known to the legal cannons as to under which law such agreements are being executed. The petitioners have also lodged a complaint on 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) with the office of Superintendence of Police, Yamuna Nagar against the respondents No. 4 to 6 specifying the threat, however, it is alleged that nothing has been done by the Authorities which has constrained the petitioners to approach this Court. Neither the present petition discloses any date, time, place or incident when the petitioners were threatened nor during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was able to demonstrate the same, however, he prays for some time to file specific affidavit along with AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-2658-2025 (O&M) -2- details of telephonic conversation at least the date, time and the telephone number from where the threat calls were received. Notice of motion. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3-State. The petitioners as well as respondents No. 4 to 6 are directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 08.04.2025. In the meantime, respondents No. 2 and 3 shall ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is protected. However, it is made clear that in case, it is found that there was no threat perception to the petitioners, the present petition shall be dismissed with cost.” In compliance of order dated 19.03.2025, learned State counsel has filed reply dated 05.04.2025 by way of affidavit of Rajeev Miglani HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. Same is taken on record. Be tagged at the appropriate place. Copy of the said reply has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned State counsel refers to para No. 6 and 7 of the said reply and submits that statements of the petitioners as well as private respondents have been recorded before the jurisdictional police authorities and their statements are attached with the reply as Annexure R-2 to R-6. Further, the private respondents have categorically submitted that they have caused no harm to the life and liberty to the petitioners and as such, it has been concluded that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid reply and specific stand of learned State counsel, no further directions are required to be issued in the present petition and the same is hereby disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 08.04.2025 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.04.09 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document