117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.5891 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Sweety Sharma and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Dhanvinder Singh Nigha, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (Oral) By way of filing the instant petition, both the petitioners have sought the indulgence of this Court for the issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of respondent No.4 because they (petitioners) are living in relationship against the wishes of this respondent. It has also been mentioned in this petition that a representation (Annexure P-3) has already been moved to respondent No.2 in this regard. 2. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the present petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance. 3. Heard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to look into and take appropriate SEEMA SHARMA 2025.06.02 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRWP No.5891 of 2025 -2- action on the said representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners. 5. Learned State counsel has no objection for the same. 6. Keeping in view the intent of the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which ensures the protection of life and liberty to the citizens as well as the above-discussed limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the legality and validity of the relationship between the petitioners, respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, is hereby directed to look into the afore-referred representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners genuinely deserve any protection, then to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. However, it is clarified that this order shall not be construed to be a shield to the petitioners against any civil or criminal action/ proceedings already initiated or intended/contemplated to be initiated against them by any competent authority/person on account of their above- said relationship and permissible under the relevant provisions of law. 8. The petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly. 02.06.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No SEEMA SHARMA 2025.06.02 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment