1 2026:CGHC:18852-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 219 of 2026 1 - Chintu Agrawal S/o Shri Giriraj Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, P.S. Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anjali Sharma D/o Shri Naveen Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, P.S. Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Manatralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Department Of Home Affiars, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Naveen Sharma S/o Late Shri Sitaram Sharma R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Shri Pawan Sharma S/o Shri Bhamchan Sharma R/o Main Road, Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.25 19:51:43 +0530 2 8 - Shri Shiv Sharma S/o Shri Bhamchan Sharma R/o Main Road, Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Shri Ashutosh Sharma S/o Shri Pawan Sharma R/o Main Raod, Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Shri Akash Sharma S/o Shri Mahaveer Sharma R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Smt. Punita Sharma W/o Shri Naveen Sharma R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 24/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/ State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ/order/direction in favour of the petitioners protecting their fundamental and human rights enshrined under the Constitution of India; ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant police protection to the petitioners from respondent no.6 to 11 who 3 are the family members of the petitioner no.2 and issue a direction from the competent authority to not fear or threaten the petitioners in any manner; iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to record the statement of the petitioners fortifying their marriage before the competent Court/Authority; iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are legally wedded husband and wife, who were acquainted with each other for a long time prior to their marriage, being neighbors, and had developed a consensual love relationship. However, the family members of petitioner No. 2 strongly opposed their union and were determined to prevent their marriage. Owing to such opposition, the petitioners voluntarily left their native place and solemnized their marriage on 27.02.2026 at Arya Samaj, Jaipur, Rajasthan, with their free will and consent. Thereafter, they duly registered their marriage before the competent authority in Jaipur and executed an affidavit affirming their marital status. At the time of marriage, both petitioners were major, and thus legally competent to enter into a valid marriage under law. 4. He further submits that subsequent to their marriage, the 4 petitioners have been facing continuous threats, including threats of honour killing and false criminal implication, from the family members of petitioner No. 2. Despite submitting written complaints to the concerned police authorities, no effective action has been taken, thereby leaving the petitioners in a constant state of fear for their lives and liberty. The threats have also been extended to the friends and associates of the petitioners. Earlier, the petitioners had approached before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after impleading necessary parties. In these circumstances, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court seeking protection of their fundamental rights and appropriate directions to the State authorities to ensure their safety and security. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that no cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the allegations levelled in the present petition and the petitioners have not disclosed any specific incident, date, time or material particulars constituting a cognizable offence, and the allegations of threat are vague, general and unsubstantiated. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that both the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage out of 5 their own free will and consent. The right of two consenting adults to marry a person of their choice is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2006) 5 SCC 475, wherein it has been held that inter-caste or inter-faith marriages are in the national interest and such couples are entitled to protection from threats and harassment. In para 17, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when We have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, a inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste of t inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter- religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either 6 himself or at his instigation, is taken to task d by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.” 8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, and considering the apprehension expressed by the petitioners regarding threat to their life and liberty, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities, particularly the concerned Superintendent of Police/Station House Officer, to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners and that their life and personal liberty are duly protected. It is further directed that in the event of any complaint being made by the petitioners, the same shall be promptly examined and necessary preventive measures shall be taken in accordance with law. The private respondents are also directed not to interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika