117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SANJANA AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. S.K. Choudhary, (through video conferencing). HARKESH MANUJA 1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondent No.1 to 3 so as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. 2. As per contents made in the petition along wi documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and are stated to be in 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. 5. It has been c relationship out of her threat at the hands of the petitioners are having No.4 and 6 and dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P Police, Pathankot continuous threat to the life a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: SANJANA AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the (through video conferencing). **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) resent criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondent as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. As per contents made in the petition along wi documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and are stated to be in a “Live-in Relationship”. Notice of motion. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. It has been contended that petitioner No. relationship out of her own free wish and will and without there being any threat at the hands of petitioner No.2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners are having continuous threat at the hands of No.4 and 6 and in this regard they have already submitted 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 Police, Pathankot. It has also been contended that despite there being a s threat to the life and liberty of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6634-2026 Date of Decision: June 03, 2026 ........Petitioners .....Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioners resent criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents as to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. As per contents made in the petition along with the documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on ontended that petitioner No.1 is in live-in- own free wish and will and without there being any . It has been further submitted that threat at the hands of respondent in this regard they have already submitted representation 4) to respondent No.2-Superintendent of . It has also been contended that despite there being a nd liberty of the petitioners, at the hands of 2026 June 03, 2026 resent criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 s th the documents attached, it appears that both the petitioners are major and accepts notice on - own free wish and will and without there being any . It has been further submitted that espondent Superintendent of . It has also been contended that despite there being a of TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.06.03 14:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CRWP-6634-2026 -2- private respondents, the official respondents have failed to take any action in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon two decisions rendered by this Court in the case of “Shilpa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others” passed in CRWP-10101-2021 on 22.10.2021 and “Pardeep Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana” passed in CRWP No.4521 of 2021 (O&M) on 18.05.2021. The relevant paragraph No.6 from Pardeep Singh and another's case (supra) is reproduced as under for reference:- “6. 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 situation exits where the couple 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 Law.” 7. 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 petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Pathankot to consider the representation dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) and assess the threat TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.06.03 14:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CRWP-6634-2026 -3- perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, pass necessary directions to officer concerned in this regard. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 9. Nothing construed herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion of the merits of the case. 10. However, it is clarified that this order shall not debar the State from proceedings against the petitioners, if involved in any other case. 03.06.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.06.03 14:30 I agree to specified portions of this document