In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-5054 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:20.4.2009 Ekta Aneja and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Kehar Singh Hissowal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.2-A-State. None for respondents No.4 and 5. ..... S.S. Saron, J. As per office report, service is complete. However, despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking protection and for restraining respondents No.4 and 5, who are parents of petitioner No.1, from interfering in their married life. It is stated that both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her passport (Annexure-P.1) is 25.5.1986. The date of birth of petitioner No.2 as per his passport (Annexure-P.2) is 14.12.1981. The petitioners belong to different castes. However, they had a liking for each other and decided to solemnize their marriage amongst themselves. The parents of petitioner No.2 gave their consent for the said Cr. Misc. No.M-5054/2009 [2] marriage. The relatives and parents of petitioner No.1 were not agreeable. Therefore, the petitioners on their own solemnized their marriage amongst themselves at Gurudwara Dashmesh Nagar, Kacha Malak Road, Jagraon according to Sikh rites and ceremonies on 30.1.2009. The certificate dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3) and the photographs (Annexure-P.4) with regard to the solemnization of the marriage have been placed on record. The marriage that has been solemnized is not to the liking of parents (respondents No.4 and 5) of petitioner No.1. Therefore, they apprehend threat to themselves. The petitioners also submitted an application dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure-P.5) to the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural) seeking protection of their life and liberty from the parents (respondents No.4 and 5) of petitioner No.1. Despite the said application the threat persists. On notice of motion being issued, reply has been filed by Satish Kumar, Inspector, SHO, Police Station Kurukshetra on behalf of respondent No.2-A i.e. Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, Haryana. It is submitted that on receipt of notice in the present case, respondent No.4 (Om Prakash Aneja) was contacted. He, his wife (respondent No.5) and petitioner No.1 got recorded their statements to the effect that the marriage of the petitioners was performed happily. Respondent No.4, his wife (respondent No.5) and other relatives also attended the said marriage and there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners. Copy of the statement of petitioner No.1 (Annexure-R.1) has been placed on record. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty on account of the marriage that has been solemnized by them amongst themselves. They Cr. Misc. No.M-5054/2009 [3] belong to different castes. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (3) RCR (Cr.) 870, it was observed by the Supreme Court that there is no bar to an inter- caste marriage under law. Besides, it was directed that the police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major and undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one 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. In the present case as per reply on behalf of respondent No.2-A, there is no threat to the petitioners. Be that as it may, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2, 2-A and 3 that in case the petitioners approach any of them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition the same shall be duly considered and looked into by them independently and in accordance with law. April 20, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*