Crl.Misc. No.M-35937 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-35937 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.02.2011 Sharmila and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. K.S.Chaudhary Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to protect their lives and liberties. Notice of motion was issued on 07.12.2010. At the time of issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed: “Petitioners claimed that they have attained majority and have married against the wishes of family members of petitioner No.1. Apprehending threat to their life and liberty, they have filed this petition for protection. Without expression of any opinion regarding the age or validity of their marriage, notice of motion for February 22, 2011. Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioners will not be taken into custody forcibly by the police on the complaint of private respondents alleging that petitioner No.1 has been kidnapped or abducted by petitioner No.2.” In response thereto, reply on behalf of the respondent-State along with affidavits of private respondents have been filed in Court and the same are taken on record. It has been mentioned in the reply that respondents No.4 to 7 were contacted and they have filed their respective Crl.Misc. No.M-35937 of 2010 2 affidavits stating that they have no objection to the marriage of the petitioners and no threat was given to them. It has also been mentioned that the petitioners are residing in Delhi and not at Hissar. Respondent No.4-Satya Naraya, the father of petitioner No.1, is also present in court who has stated that he has no objection to the marriage of the petitioners and no grouse is there against the petitioners. Both the petitioners are leading happy married life. In view of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State as well as submissions made by learned State counsel, nothing remains in the petition and the same has become infructuous. Dismissed as having become infructuous. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) Feb.22, 2011. JUDGE Seema-II