IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-6509 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Parvesh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 8, 10 & 11. None for respondent No.9. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Parvesh daughter of Udaivir Singh and Vinod Rawat son of Kamal Singh Rawat have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. police authorities, to protect their life and liberty from respondent Nos.4 to 11, on the ground that the petitioners have Crl. Misc. No. M-6509 of 2011 [2] attained the age of majority, petitioner No.1 having been born on 29.4.1992 as per certificate, Annexure P-1 and petitioner No.2 having born on 13.10.1980 as per document Annexure P-2. Respondent Nos.4 to 11, however, are threatening the petitioners. Marriage certificate dated 22.9.2010 has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. 2. It has specifically been pleaded in Para 3 (v) of the petition that “petitioners are facing such a grim situation, as the petitioners are major and there is no legal bar to perform their love- cum-inter caste marriage. The petitioners took a conscious and independent decision to marry and live life as per their own wishes with dignity and honour in order to make their life meaningful.” 3. Notice of motion was issued and directions were issued to provide adequate security to the petitioners, if required. 4. From the reply, filed on behalf of the respondent- State, it has been brought out that on 3.4.2011, Kamal Singh, father of petitioner No.2 gave a complaint to the police personnel of Police Post, Sanjay Colony, Police Station, Mujessar, Faridabad, to the effect that Vinod Kumar is his younger son and is a practising Advocate, and was already married to Smt. Bhumeshwari. Said Vinod Kumar has two sons and one daughter from the wedlock. Vinod Kumar was not residing at the address given in the petition. DDR No.13 has been entered in that regard on 3.4.2011. Crl. Misc. No. M-6509 of 2011 [3] 5. It has also been brought out that Udaivir Singh, father of petitioner No.1 (Parvesh) gave school leaving certificate to the police, accordingly to which, date of birth of Parvesh is 18.10.1993. In such circumstances, she had not attained the age of majority on the date of marriage. Further, false facts have been pleaded before this Court. 6. The petitioners are present in Court in person and have not controverted what has been stated on behalf of the respondents. 7. It is most unfortunate that relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is sought by person(s) such as petitioners, on the basis of filing forged and fabricated documents and giving false statements on affidavits. The purpose of issuance of order in such cases is not to cause damage or harm to other persons, who might be the spouse of one of the petitioners. 8. In the present case, it has been brought out that petitioner No.2, Vinod Rawat, is already married and has three living children. The said person, while deserting his wife and children, pleads marriage with petitioner No.1, which in the eyes of law, would not be a marriage. In view of the above facts and circumstances, no favourable direction can be issued in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The petition is dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. M-6509 of 2011 [4] 10. Because commission of offence has already come to the notice of the police authorities, it is directed that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken. 11. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to the Bar Council, Punjab and Haryana, in view of the fact that petitioner No.2 is stated to be a practising lawyer. (AJAI LAMBA) September 23, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?