IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CRWP-5101-2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 Manjita and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Ms. Lalita Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana. ***** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (ORAL) 1. On 16.05.2025, the following order was passed in the present petition:- “i) By filing present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek necessary protection of their lives and personal liberty in view of the fact that they are living in a live-in relationship and are under eminent threats at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. ii) As per memo of parties, Petitioner No.1 – Manjita, aged about 22 years, is stated to be a resident of House No.150, Ward No.10, Fatehpur Jatt, Nawata Road, Saharanpur (U.P.), while Petitioner No.2 – Rohit, aged 19 years, is stated to be a resident of Village Chhota Bans, Radauri (44), District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. iii) The learned State counsel is directed to verify the residential addresses and antecedents of the petitioners. iv) List the matter on 21.05.2025 for further proceedings.” NISHA 2025.05.23 15.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5101-2025 -2- 2. Today, status report dated 20.05.2025 has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. A copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. While referring to para 4 of the reply, learned State counsel submits that petitioner No.1 is permanently residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh with her family, therefore, instant petition on her behalf seeking protection is not maintainable. 4. It is also informed that during the pendency of the instant petition, both the petitioners moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar and after recording the statements of the petitioners, it was concluded that there was no threat perception at the instance of private respondents. In view of the above circumstances, no protection is required to be provided to the petitioners at this stage. 5. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the present petition. 6. Dismissed as withdrawn. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE May 21, 2025 Nisha-1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No NISHA 2025.05.23 15.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document