Crl. Misc. No.M-20054 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-20054 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.07.2010 Anjali Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, respondent No.5, in person along with his counsel Ms. Poonam Verma. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 to 4 to safeguard the life and liberty of the petitioner who is stated to be married to one Rajesh against the wishes of respondent No.5, father of the petitioner. On 16.07.2010, the following order was passed : “ This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to respondents No.2 to 4 to safeguard the life and liberty of the petitioner who is stated to be married to one Rajesh against the wishes of respondent No.5, father Crl. Misc. No.M-20054 of 2010 2 of the petitioner. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated are that petitioner-Anjali Aggarwal married one Rajesh on 29.5.2010 at New Delhi against the wishes of her father-respondent No.5 (Suresh Kumar Aggarwal). Lateron, she was forced to register an FIR No.347 dated 4.6.2010 under Sections 366,376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Central Faridabad against the said Rajesh. Thereafter, she moved a complaint dated 14.7.2010 (P-3) before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad stating therein that her earlier statement on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered against Rajesh, was made under pressure of her father and other relatives. On account of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner is feeling endangered at the hands of respondent No.5 i.e. her father who is forcing her to withdraw the said complaint. However, it is also brought to the notice that the said Rajesh is in judicial custody and that he is already married to some one else. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot be sent back to stay with the family of Rajesh, for the time being, as he is already married to some other lady. As stated by the petitioner, she has no other place to go. She has expressed her willingness to be sent to the Nari Niketan, U.T., Chandigarh till further orders.” Thereafter, the petitioner was sent to Nari Niketan, U.T., Chandigarh and the parties were directed to be present in the Court today. In pursuance to the said Order, the petitioner is present in the Court. Respondent No.5-Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, who is father of the petitioner, is also present in the Court along with his counsel. The statements of the Crl. Misc. No.M-20054 of 2010 3 petitioner, as well as, respondent No.5 are recorded separately. Respondent no.5, who is the father of the petitioner, has stated that he would like to take back his daughter. It was further stated that in case, she was not ready to accompany him, then, she was at liberty to stay wherever she wanted. He further undertook not to harm her in any manner. The petitioner, on the other hand, has refused to accompany her father but stated that she did not wish to press the present petition in view of the statement made by her father i.e. respondent No.5 and prayed that she may be allowed to withdraw the present petition. The petitioner is 21 years of age and therefore, in view of the statement made by the petitioner and respondent No.5, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet