CRWP-3044 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 107 Arshdeep Singh and another State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 2. argued that the petitioners are well known to each other since long and are in a live-in- engaged with each other with the consent of their respective family(s) but the family of pe petitioner No.2 intended to get her married to a man, elder offered to take petitioner No.2 abroad after marriage. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioners account of their live and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s) has been entreated for. 3044-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arshdeep Singh and another V/s State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.) ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The substantive prayer made in the petition in hand “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and direction may kindly be issued to the respondents no.1 to 3 to provide protection to life and liberty to the petitioners from the hands of respondents no. 4 to 7. It is further prayed that directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to adopt the coercive method to arrest the petitioner no. 1 and his family members in false criminal case arising out of this relationship. Learned counsel for the petitioners, pleading their argued that the petitioners are well known to each other since long and are in -relationship at the moment. Earlier, both the petitioners were engaged with each other with the consent of their respective family(s) but the family of petitioner No.2, later on, broke the engagement as the father of petitioner No.2 intended to get her married to a man, elder offered to take petitioner No.2 abroad after marriage. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioners have faced the wrath of their families on account of their live-in-relationship and, and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s) has been entreated for. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-3044-2025 Date of decision: 27.03.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioners ***** The substantive prayer made in the petition in hand reads thus: It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and direction may kindly be issued to the respondents no.1 to 3 to provide protection to life and liberty to the petitioners from the hands of rther prayed that directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to adopt the coercive method to arrest the petitioner no. 1 and his family members in false criminal case arising out of this relationship.” Learned counsel for the petitioners, pleading their cause, has argued that the petitioners are well known to each other since long and are in relationship at the moment. Earlier, both the petitioners were engaged with each other with the consent of their respective family(s) but broke the engagement as the father of petitioner No.2 intended to get her married to a man, elder to her, as he has offered to take petitioner No.2 abroad after marriage. Learned counsel has faced the wrath of their families on , therefore, protection of their life and liberty at the hands of private respondent(s) has been entreated for. .2025 reads thus: It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and direction may kindly be issued to the respondents no.1 to 3 to provide protection to life and liberty to the petitioners from the hands of rther prayed that directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to adopt the coercive method to arrest the petitioner no. 1 and his family cause, has argued that the petitioners are well known to each other since long and are in relationship at the moment. Earlier, both the petitioners were engaged with each other with the consent of their respective family(s) but broke the engagement as the father of as he has offered to take petitioner No.2 abroad after marriage. Learned counsel has faced the wrath of their families on therefore, protection of their life AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.01 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-3044 3. judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court titled as Another vs. State of Haryana and others relevant whereof reads as under: 3044-2025 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein t judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court titled as Another vs. State of Haryana and others relevant whereof reads as under: “42. A minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where the live relationship is partnered only by minors, thereby the concerned cannot seek the protection from Courts of law. The reason for making the said conclusion becomes firmly embedded in the factum, that a minor belonging to any religious denomination, thus is inc If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom. Contrarily the freedom to make choices by the minors are ably fettered, by the statutes respectively nomenclatured as and Guardianship Act, 1956, and, as nomenclatured as Wards Act, 1890. 43. Furthermore, in respect of religious communit Hindus, the Indian Majority Act, thus prescribing the age of majority, therebys becomes the regimen wherebys, there is a bar against a minor entering into a contract. The effect thereof, is that, the said disability encumbered upon a minor belonging to a religious denomination other than the Hindus, thus therebys also concomitantly preempting the minor from making any choices, disability whereof also covers the makings of ill choices qua the entering into a live with an adult. 44. If protection is provided to minor partners, who are in a live relationship where only one of them is a minor, or where both are minors, therebys the granting of the espoused protection, rather would run counter, vis-a-vis, well statutory crampings of discretions of a minor. Moreover therebys this Court would be avoiding to perform its duty as a parens patriae towards the minors wherebys rather this Court is required to be ensuring the welfare of the minor concerned. Ther solemn duty cast upon Courts of law, naturally requires that the minor concerned, rather than being permitted to be a partner in a live relationship either with a minor or with an adult, thus his/her custody is required to be ensured to be retrieved to his/her parents, and, natural guardian. However, in the above endeavour if the Court perceives that there would be an imminent threat to the life of the minor, therebys, the Courts are required to be proceeding to recourse the relevant prov 2 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court titled as Yash Pal and Another vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239, in relationship with an adult or where the live elationship is partnered only by minors, thereby the concerned cannot seek the protection from Courts of law. The reason for making the said conclusion becomes firmly embedded in the factum, that a minor belonging to any religious denomination, thus is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her Contrarily the freedom to make choices by the minors are ably fettered, by the statutes respectively nomenclatured as The Hindu Minority , and, as nomenclatured as Guardians and 43. Furthermore, in respect of religious communities other than the Hindus, the Indian Majority Act, thus prescribing the age of majority, therebys becomes the regimen wherebys, there is a bar against a minor entering into a contract. The effect thereof, is that, the said disability or belonging to a religious denomination other than the Hindus, thus therebys also concomitantly preempting the minor from making any choices, disability whereof also covers the makings of ill choices qua the entering into a live-in relationship either with a minor or 44. If protection is provided to minor partners, who are in a live relationship where only one of them is a minor, or where both are minors, therebys the granting of the espoused protection, rather would run is, well statutory crampings of discretions of a minor. Moreover therebys this Court would be avoiding to perform its duty as a parens patriae towards the minors wherebys rather this Court is required to be ensuring the welfare of the minor concerned. Therefore, the said solemn duty cast upon Courts of law, naturally requires that the minor concerned, rather than being permitted to be a partner in a live relationship either with a minor or with an adult, thus his/her custody is be retrieved to his/her parents, and, natural guardian. However, in the above endeavour if the Court perceives that ould be an imminent threat to the life of the minor, therebys, the Courts are required to be proceeding to recourse the relevant provisions o a Yash Pal and , 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239, in relationship with an adult or where the live-in elationship is partnered only by minors, thereby the concerned cannot seek the protection from Courts of law. The reason for making the said conclusion becomes firmly embedded in the factum, that a minor ompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her Contrarily the freedom to make choices by the minors are ably The Hindu Minority Guardians and ies other than the Hindus, the Indian Majority Act, thus prescribing the age of majority, therebys becomes the regimen wherebys, there is a bar against a minor entering into a contract. The effect thereof, is that, the said disability or belonging to a religious denomination other than the Hindus, thus therebys also concomitantly preempting the minor from making any choices, disability whereof also covers the makings of ill h a minor or 44. If protection is provided to minor partners, who are in a live-in relationship where only one of them is a minor, or where both are minors, therebys the granting of the espoused protection, rather would run is, well statutory crampings of discretions of a minor. Moreover therebys this Court would be avoiding to perform its duty as a parens patriae towards the minors wherebys rather this Court is required efore, the said solemn duty cast upon Courts of law, naturally requires that the minor concerned, rather than being permitted to be a partner in a live-in relationship either with a minor or with an adult, thus his/her custody is be retrieved to his/her parents, and, natural guardian. However, in the above endeavour if the Court perceives that ould be an imminent threat to the life of the minor, therebys, the isions AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.01 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-3044 3.1. minors are involved in a live of the fact being of the minor in question. To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shie exploitation and moral peril. The law, in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognizing their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices. By legislat provisions exist to interdict any form of abuse or impropriety that might arise from the unfettered discretion of those yet to attain the full facilities of maturity. Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s involvement in suc legislative intent but would also undermine the very preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence. Thus, the Court, while exercising its protective jurisdiction, must tread with meas ensuring that its decree does not, even by implication, countenance that which the law expressly deprecates. 4. case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 namely Pal born on 25.08.2007 and she is aged about 17 years, 06 months and 25 days 3044-2025 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 inasmuch, as directing the minor to till his or her attaining majority, thus staying comfortably at Children Home or at a Nari N may be.” Ergo, in adjudicating upon a petition for protection wherein minors are involved in a live-in-relationship, the Court must of the fact that the paramount consideration remains the welfare and well the minor in question. To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established statutory framework designed to shield the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril. The law, in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognizing their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices. By legislat provisions exist to interdict any form of abuse or impropriety that might arise from the unfettered discretion of those yet to attain the full facilities of maturity. Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s involvement in such a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence. Thus, the Court, while exercising its protective jurisdiction, must tread with meas ensuring that its decree does not, even by implication, countenance that which the law expressly deprecates. Reverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand, it is admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 namely Pal born on 25.08.2007 and she is aged about 17 years, 06 months and 25 days 3 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 inasmuch, as directing the minor to till his or her attaining majority, thus staying comfortably at Children Home or at a Nari Niketan, as the case in adjudicating upon a petition for protection wherein relationship, the Court must remain mindful that the paramount consideration remains the welfare and well the minor in question. To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established ld the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril. The law, in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognizing their tender age and the consequential susceptibility to undue influence and imprudent choices. By legislative fiat, provisions exist to interdict any form of abuse or impropriety that might arise from the unfettered discretion of those yet to attain the full facilities of maturity. Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s h a relationship would not only be antithetical to the legislative intent but would also undermine the very bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence. Thus, the Court, while exercising its protective jurisdiction, must tread with measured caution, ensuring that its decree does not, even by implication, countenance that Reverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand, it is admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 namely Palakdeep Kaur was born on 25.08.2007 and she is aged about 17 years, 06 months and 25 days Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, inasmuch, as directing the minor to till his or her attaining majority, thus iketan, as the case in adjudicating upon a petition for protection wherein mindful that the paramount consideration remains the welfare and well the minor in question. To extend the mantle of protection in such circumstances would, in effect, constitute an implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors, a proposition repugnant to the established ld the young and impressionable from exploitation and moral peril. The law, in its sagacity, has circumscribed the liberties of minors, recognizing their tender age and the consequential ive fiat, provisions exist to interdict any form of abuse or impropriety that might arise from the unfettered discretion of those yet to attain the full facilities of maturity. Any judicial imprimatur that indirectly sanctions a minor’s h a relationship would not only be antithetical to the bulwark erected to preserve the sanctity of youthful innocence. Thus, the Court, while ured caution, ensuring that its decree does not, even by implication, countenance that Reverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand, it is admitted akdeep Kaur was born on 25.08.2007 and she is aged about 17 years, 06 months and 25 days AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.01 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-3044 at the time of institution of the petition in hand. No.2 is a minor and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be afforded relief(s) as sought for in the petition in hand. 5. (i) (ii) to take requisite steps in accordance with law. copy of the paper Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, Punjab. (iii) order as to costs. March 27 Ajay 3044-2025 at the time of institution of the petition in hand. No.2 is a minor and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be afforded relief(s) as sought for in the petition in hand. In view of the above ratiocination, it is directed as under: The petition in hand is dismissed. Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, Punjab is directed to take requisite steps in accordance with law. Registry of this Court is directed to sent, forthwith, a complete copy of the paper-book of the present petition alongwith the instant order to or Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, Punjab. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. No order as to costs. March 27, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 4 at the time of institution of the petition in hand. Indubitably, the petitioner No.2 is a minor and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be afforded relief(s) as In view of the above ratiocination, it is directed as under: The petition in hand is dismissed. uperintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, Punjab is directed to take requisite steps in accordance with law. Registry of this Court is directed to sent, forthwith, a complete book of the present petition alongwith the instant order to or Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, Punjab. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. No (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , the petitioner No.2 is a minor and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be afforded relief(s) as uperintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, Punjab is directed Registry of this Court is directed to sent, forthwith, a complete book of the present petition alongwith the instant order to Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. No AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.01 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document