IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CRWP-5400-2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 Amandeep Kaur and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and Ors. ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr. Cyrus, Advocate for Mr.Virender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** H.S.GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners are seeking a direction to the official respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty as they apprehend danger from private respondents No.4 to 7. It is stated in the petition that petitioners have performed their marriage, which is against the will of private respondents and they have apprehension that the private respondents might cause physical harm to them. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners being major, got married against the wishes of private respondents on 19.05.2025. Ever since then, the petitioners are being threatened with dire consequences by the private respondents. Resultantly, a representation/complaint dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) was also made to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, wherein a mention has been made about the alleged threat perception. Learned counsel further submits that despite the official respondents having been communicated about the alleged threat POONAM RATHORE 2025.05.23 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRWP-5400-2025 -2- perception, no concrete steps have been taken to safeguard the petitioners. Learned counsel also submits that he would be satisfied if directions are issued to respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana to look into their representation/complaint dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) and take appropriate steps at the earliest. 3. Notice of motion to respondents No. 1 to 3 only. 4. At the asking of the Court Mr.Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. 5. Keeping in view the mandate of Supreme Court in the case of “Lata Singh V. State of U.P. and another”, JT 2006 (6) SC 173, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2- Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents. 6. It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a stamp of this Court about the marriage of the parties and no opinion with regard to the validity of the marriage has been expressed in this order. (H.S.GREWAL) May 23, 2025 JUDGE poonam Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POONAM RATHORE 2025.05.23 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh