[2025:RJ-JP:40360] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4361/2019 1. Guddi Devi D/o Mangilal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Patolia Ka Ward, Gangapur, District Sawai Madhopur. Presently R/o. Near Bagichi, Deedwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 2. Meetha Lal Saini Son Of Rewad Mal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Near Bagichi, Deedwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Superintendent Of Police, Dausa, Raj. 3. Mohan Lal Son Of Pitya Lal, R/o. Ramshala Chowk, Near Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Balaji, Sawai Madhopur. 4. Manraj Son Of Pitya Lal, R/o. Ramshala Chowk, Near Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Balaji, Sawai Madhopur. 5. Laxman Son Of Mangi Lal, R/o. Patolia Ka Ward, Gangapur, District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Rajesh Son Of Mangi Lal, R/o. Patolia Ka Ward, Gangapur, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/10/2025 1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the contention that at the time of filing instant criminal miscellaneous petition, they were living in live-in-relationship. Both of them were adults and were in a position to understand the nature of relationship. However, their [2025:RJ-JP:40360] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4361/2019] parents did not like their relationship and were causing threat to their lives. Hence, protection was sought by both the petitioners. 2. This Court vide order dated 15.07.2019, while issuing notice to private respondents No.3 to 6, directed the respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Dausa to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners from their relatives. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after filing of the criminal miscellaneous petition, both the petitioners have performed marriage and have been living happily after marriage and even children have also born out of their wedlock. 4. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the respondents No.3 to 6. 5. In the light of above facts where, at present the petitioners No.1 & 2 are legally wedded spouses, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners will submit a representation before the respondent No.2, in case, they are still facing any threat from respondents No.3 to 6 and after receiving such representation and examining the nature of threat, if any, the respondent No.2 shall take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law. 6. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/51