Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27925 (PNJ)

KOMAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRWP/5997/2026 · 2026-07-07

Sanjay Vashisth

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRWP-5997-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CRWP-5997-2026 Decided on: 07.07.2026 Komal and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana. (appears on advance notice) **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J.(Oral) 1. Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing official respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect the life and personal liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 8. 2. On 20.05.2026, following was recorded by this Court: “ Petitioner No.1-Komal, aged 18 years and 11 months and petitioner No.2-Gaurav, aged 25 years, have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 8 and other relatives, on the ground that both of them have allegedly performed marriage. 2. Petitioner No.1-Komal earlier was residing at H.No.565, Block 15 Yards, Raghubir Nagar, PO Tagore Garden, District West Delhi, Delhi, Aadhaar Card No.7642 3260 1235 and Mobile No.9588769280. RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5997-2026 2 3. Let the credentials of petitioner No.1 be verified by the respondent-State. Complete copy of paperbook be handed over to learned State counsel. List on 26.05.2026.” Thereafter, on 26.05.2026, learned State counsel sought an adjournment to verify the exact age of petitioner No. 1. Today, learned State counsel submits that, as per statement of the father of petitioner No. 1, she is a minor, having her date of birth as 18.03.2010. 3. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file fresh petition after placing on record the relevant evidence regarding the age of both the petitioners. 4. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought and recorded hereabove. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 07, 2026 rashmi Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RASHMI 2026.07.08 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document