CRWP No.6678 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 132 JYOTI VERMA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Sh. for the petitioners. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. The present Criminal Writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. [2]. Notice of motion. [3]. Mr. G respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and requisite copies of the petition have already been supplied to the learned State Counsel by learned counsel for the petitioners. [4]. As per contents made in the petition along with the documents attached, it appears that Relationship”. [5]. It has been contended that petitioner No. 1 is in live out of her own free wish and will and without there being any threat petitioner No.2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are having 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.6678 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: JYOTI VERMA AND ANOTHER ...... STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Sh. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The present Criminal Writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 so as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. Notice of motion. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and requisite copies of the petition have already been supplied to the learned State Counsel by learned counsel for the petitioners. As per contents made in the petition along with the documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and stated to be in a “Live It has been contended that petitioner No. 1 is in live out of her own free wish and will and without there being any threat 2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are having IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.6678 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 ......Petitioners ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA The present Criminal Writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to 3 so as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. unjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and requisite copies of the petition have already been supplied to the learned State Counsel by learned counsel for the petitioners. As per contents made in the petition along with the documents both the petitioners are major and stated to be in a “Live It has been contended that petitioner No. 1 is in live-in relationship out of her own free wish and will and without there being any threat at the hands of 2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are having 1 by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to f of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and requisite copies of the petition have already been As per contents made in the petition along with the documents both the petitioners are major and stated to be in a “Live-in relationship at the hands of 2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are having MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRWP No.6678 of 2025 continuous threat at the hands of private respondent they have already submitted representation dated respondent No.2. It has also been contended that despite there being a continuous threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, at the Nos.4 to 7, the official respondents have failed to take any action in this regard. [6]. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the two decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Punjab and others” “Pardeep Singh and another Versus 4521 of 2021 on 18.05.2021. The relevant paragraph No. 6 from and another's case (supra) is reproduced as under for reference: “6. Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exits where the coup only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situation the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.” [7]. Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and w being maintained by the petitioners, however, considering their age, the present 2025 (O&M) continuous threat at the hands of private respondent they have already submitted representation dated respondent No.2. It has also been contended that despite there being a continuous threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, at the , the official respondents have failed to take any action in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the two decisions rendered by this Court in the case of “Shilpa and another Verusus State of Punjab and others” passed in CRWP No. 10101 of 2021 “Pardeep Singh and another Versus State of Haryana on 18.05.2021. The relevant paragraph No. 6 from case (supra) is reproduced as under for reference: “6. Let us examine the issue from another view Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical situation exits where the couple has entered into a live only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situation the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Law.” Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and without expressing any opinion upon the relationship being maintained by the petitioners, however, considering their age, the present continuous threat at the hands of private respondent Nos.4 to 7 and in this regard they have already submitted representation dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) respondent No.2. It has also been contended that despite there being a continuous threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners, at the hands of private respondent , the official respondents have failed to take any action in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the two decisions “Shilpa and another Verusus State of CRWP No. 10101 of 2021 on 22.10.2021 and State of Haryana” passed in CRWP No. on 18.05.2021. The relevant paragraph No. 6 from Pardeep Singh case (supra) is reproduced as under for reference: Let us examine the issue from another view-point. The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical le has entered into a live-in relationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the ithout expressing any opinion upon the relationship being maintained by the petitioners, however, considering their age, the present 2 and in this regard 3) to respondent No.2. It has also been contended that despite there being a continuous hands of private respondent Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the two decisions “Shilpa and another Verusus State of on 22.10.2021 and CRWP No. Pardeep Singh point. The Constitutional Courts grant protection to couples, who have married against the wishes of their respective parents. They seek protection of life and liberty from their parents and family members, who disapprove of the alliance. An identical in relationship. The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would not. The s and not from the society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief. No citizen can be permitted to take law in his own hands in a country governed by Rule of Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the ithout expressing any opinion upon the relationship being maintained by the petitioners, however, considering their age, the present MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRWP No.6678 of 2025 petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No.2 of Police, Fazilka 13.06.2025 (Annexure P after considering the same, pass necessary directions to respondent No.3 in this regard. [8]. It is, however, clarified that thi proceeding against the petitioners, if involved in any other case. [9]. It is made clear that this order may not be construed as expression of an opinion on legality and validity of the marriage of the petitioners. June 24, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No.2 Fazilka, District Fazilka, Punjab to consider the representation dated (Annexure P-3) and assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, pass necessary directions to respondent No.3 in this It is, however, clarified that this order shall not debar the State from proceeding against the petitioners, if involved in any other case. t is made clear that this order may not be construed as expression of an opinion on legality and validity of the marriage of the petitioners. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent to consider the representation dated and assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, pass necessary directions to respondent No.3 in this s order shall not debar the State from proceeding against the petitioners, if involved in any other case. t is made clear that this order may not be construed as expression of an opinion on legality and validity of the marriage of the petitioners. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 3 Superintendent to consider the representation dated and assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, pass necessary directions to respondent No.3 in this s order shall not debar the State from t is made clear that this order may not be construed as expression of MOHMED ATIK 2025.06.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment