IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.5223 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 3, 2011 RAVINDER KAUR NAGRA & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.8. Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.9. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, prays for providing security and to protect life and liberty of the petitioners during their stay in India. 2 It has been brought out that the petitioners got married, while in Australia. The marriage is not being accepted by respondents No.8 and 9 and, therefore, the petitioners feel threatened. 3 The State has filed reply to the effect that Charanjeet Kaur, mother of petitioner No.1, was contacted. The said person has clearly stated that she has no objection to the marriage of the petitioners. Respondent No.8 was also contacted, who has stated that he has no objection to the marriage of the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No.5223 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 4 Separate affidavits on behalf of respondents No.8 and 9 have been filed in court today, which are taken on record. 5 As per affidavit of Narinder Singh (respondent No.9), he had been living in United States of America for the last two years and returned to India on 21.1.2011, as would be evident from the passport, boarding passes, etc., placed on record as Annexures R-1 to R-3. Respondent No.9 has no relation with petitioner No.1 and is only a friend of brother of petitioner No.1. In such circumstances, he has no concern with the marriage of the petitioners. 6 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to issue any directions under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. This is particularly so because the relatives of petitioner No.1 and respondents No.8 and 9 have come out with a stand that they have no objection to the marriage of the petitioners. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. August 3, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?