CRM.M 27540 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 07.10.2009. Swapandeep Kaur and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.D.S.Sandhu,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Rawat,AAG,Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate,for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') vide which the petitioners have sought a direction from this Court to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to protect their lives and liberty which is being threatened at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 because the petitioners have got married against their wishes. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner No.1 (Swapandeep Kaur) was born on 11.10.1988 as per matriculation certificate (Annexure P-1) and Sanjay (Petitioner No.2) was born on 24.9.1979 as per date of birth mentioned in Driving License (Annexure CRM.M 27540 of 2009 2 P-2). Both of them have got married according to Sikh rites in Shri Gurdwara Mata Sahib Kaur Ji Colony, Mansoorwal, Dona, District Kapurthala. on 28.9.2009 as per marriage certificate (Annexure P-3). Photographs of marriage are also appended as Annexure P-4. Since petitioner No.1 has married against the wishes of her parents ( respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and were apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, moved an application (Annexure P-5) dated 24.9.2009 to S.S.P. Tarn Taran (respondent No.2) for giving them police protection. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 1.10.2009. Pursuant to which Sh.R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 while Mr.A.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr.Dhaliwal has stated at the bar that he has instructions from his clients (respondent Nos.4 and 5 ) that they would not interfere in the married life of the petitioners and would not cause any harm to them. Though, the aforesaid statement was made in the Court , yet, learned counsel for the petitioners is still apprehensive of harm being caused to the petitioners at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, therefore, he submits that a direction may be given to S.S.P.,Tarn Taran (respondent No.2) to provide adequate security, in case any threat is caused to the lives and liberty of the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case because both the petitioners are major and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2006) 5 CRM.M 27540 of 2009 3 SCC 475 in which it is held that “ Once a person becomes a 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 or 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 any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law”, I allow this petition and direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and particularly respondent No.2. to look into the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-5) or any other application moved by them and in case of any danger/threat, provide them adequate security to protect their lives and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 07.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge