IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 9640 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.4.2009 Baljinder Kaur and another ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioners had a liking for each other and therefore they decided to solemnize their marriage amongst themselves. Both the petitioners, it is submitted are major and belong to the same caste. It is stated that they are able to understand as to what is right and wrong. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her matriculation certificate (Annexure P1) is 19.7.1986 and that of petitioner No.2 as per his matriculation certificate (Annexure P2) is 15.6.1988. The petitioners have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 25.3.2009 at Dera Moya Di Mandi No.2, Sirhind, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib according to Sikh rites. The certificate (Annexure P3) and the photographs (Annexure P4) of the marriage have been placed on record. On account of the marriage that has been solemnized by the petitioners, they are being harassed by the parents (respondents No.5 and 6) of petitioner No.1. The petitioners therefore apprehend danger to their life. Petitioner No.1 has also submitted an application (Annexure P5) to SSP, Khanna (respondents No.2) and SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No.3) for providing them security. However, despite the said application, the threat persists. Therefore, they have approached this Court. Crl. Misc. No. M- 9640 of 2009 [2] Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. It is submitted by petitioner No.1 that she has solemnized her marriage with petitioner No.2 of her own free will and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Besides, she is happy with her marriage. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 that in case the petitioners approach any of them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition, the same would be looked into by them independently and in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 2, 2009 amit