SlfiaLE BENCH <^//"> o> IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T??- WRIT PETITION PW No^^ /2011 PETITIONERS ^y^y '.••' ..^(^* 3&/^^ .**/ ^" ^y. <?A/ <f ^8" 0s (9-7y/1 Suraj Kumar Mandal, Son of Koushal Kishore, aged about 21 years, Caste Kiuini, Anuradha Soni, wife of Suraj Kuniar Mandal, D/o. Radha Krishna Soni, aged about 19 years, Both R/o. Shantinagar, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.), VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^lpfti^^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Departinent 'of Hoine Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ainbikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), ,3. Station House OfGcer, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surguja (C.G.), 4. Station House Officer, P.S. Babhani, Disti-ict Sonbhadra (U.P.), 5. Radha Krishna Soiii S/o. ^' Vimleshwar Soni, aged 50 years, 6. Rajnarayan, Son of Radha Krishna Soni, aged about 27 years, 7. Arul Kumar, Son of Radha Krishna Soni, aged about 22 years, No. 5 to 7 are R/o. Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Dista-ict Surguja (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ 3^ Petitioners Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.rcrtNO.3935/2011 Suraj Kumar Mandal and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Present: - Smt. hlamida Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General along with Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 on advance copy. , ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day of July, 2011) Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the State authorities/Police authorities from taking any coercive action against the petitioners and particulariy, family members of the Petitioner No.1 and also issue direction to the Police Authorities not to initiate any criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1 and his family members. Further prayer has been made that the State authorities/Police authorities may be directed to provide necessary protection to the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed that direction may be issued to the respondents No.3 & 5 to pay compensation to the father and brother of the petitioner No.1, as according to the petitioners, they were unnecessarily harassed and detained in custody between 04-07-2011 to 05-07-2011 at Police Station Vishrampur. 3. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 & 2 are major and they married on 14-09-2010. It is submitted that after the marriage, the parents and the family members of the petitioner No.2 have not accepted the same and one way or the other, the petitioners and the family members of the petitioner No.1 are being harassed by the family of the petitioner No.2. It ii ^^@^s •-c^aiersss^^^ —2-- is alleged that the family member of the petitioner No.1 were pressurized by the Police and theywere arrested and thereafter released on 05-07-2011. An application under Section 98 of the Cr.P.C. was moved, as the petitioner No.2 was illegally detained, but later on, petitioner No.2 rescued and now she is living with her husband-petitioner No.1. In these circumstances, the petitioners are apprehending that respondents No.5 & 7 may harass or indulge in criminal activity. It has also been stated that the Police authorities are also acting in support of respondents No.5 & 7. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the petitioners, if they have any apprehension, they should approach the Superintendent of Police, who will look into the matter, and further that, their life and liberty would be protected. 5. As far as prayer to direct the respondents not to initiate any criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1 or his family members is concerned, the same is hypothetical. The petitioners would be at liberty to challenge criminal proceedings, if any, drawn against them, in accordance with law. As far as prayer for compensation is concerned, the person, who is alleged to have been illegally detained in custody, has not filed the p6tition. In case, any such petition is filed, the same shall be dealtwith, in accordan.ee with law. 6. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to protect their life and liberty against any criminal action. Therefore, it is directed that the concerned Superintendent of Police shall take necessary steps to ensure that the life and liberty ofthe petitioners is protected. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohaii Shrivastava Judge Tumane i •^vasss^ss, 'i ••-•'••