=F —78 %^^ ^ST ^t^KD^, ytl1<H<|(o, '[®i^TOy *1S<4^tl ^HI^ "H^ 200 3fl^?T TT^ ("^3^?) -w^T ^T f^rNr 'cT^TI -STT^T^RT^ i^TW ^Tft^ 3TT^T ^i^fg^ ^P^ff ^ -fe^i- l^i^TT ^° 3:ffm an^ir WRIT PFTITIdN (c) N0.1466 OF 2008 (P^tltlon ArtlcSe 1. 2. Vs |26 of ths Cwistjtution of India) Jc^at Maske, 5/o Shri Rajesti^ar Rao Mask©, abaut 26 yeors. Neha Maske, D/o Shri <Anii ©olcha, ^ge about 22 years. B^th R/o Behind Primary ^iris Schooi, B^dhapora, Roipur, Dlstt Ralpur (C©) 1. 4 Mr. J.D. Bajpayee, Advocatefc) State of ChhGttisgarh, through the 5ecr@tar^, Home Deportment, D,K,5. Bhewan, Mantrai^a, Ralpur. Superintendent of Police, Raipur bistt Raipur (C©). Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rqjnandgaon (C@). Stotion House Offic^r, Poilc^ Station- Kotwali, Distt. Raipur (C@) Station House Officer, Policc Station- Basantpur, Dtstt. Rqjnandgaon (C@) Anii fioicha, R/o Swastik Coai Industries, Nandaie Naka, Distt'. RQJhandg<x?n (C@) r the petitioners^ AAr. Arun Sao, 6ovt Advocate for the State. Mr< S* Thakur, Advocate forr^ spondent No.6. -HG—78 ^TT^T'3RT f^tNs ^^T 3?T^T'^ri^ ~3~^[ ^PT{^R, ^tTl^^Ko, [®l<ni^^< WH^ITWRT^) "^ 200 ^TT^T TT^K (^ii^^T) ^RHWH^ 3^T ^ O R ^ <^l^4ll 'HFT^ff ^ ft^ <pil<^l< ^T 3tfW37T^T L OR D E R (PasseN on 21.4.; P@r Dhlreridro Mishra. J: l* The petitioners have filed 1^his petition for foilowing reiiefs;- lil) That the Hon'bSe Cour|" may kindly a writ of mandamus to dlrect the poiice admini^ harassment, threats or actt" of vlolence. 2) That the Hon'bie Cou tration to protect the petitioners for 't may kindly be pleased to direct the posice the respondent a^thorities to stop harassing tiie fGmiiy members of the petitionef NoJ 3) That the Hon'ble C^urt may kindiy direct the police the respondent Guthorities ^o not initiate Qny crirninal proceeding against l4ie petitioner No.|. 4)Any ofner reSief, whi ^h may be suitable Jn 1+ie facts and circumstances of the cas^, in favour of the petitioners with the cost of the petition may a 2< Leamed counsel for the | petition for issuance of wr| (Cr.) No.1520 of 2008 has so b@ granted/' ictitioner fairiy subrnits that the writ it of habeas corpu^ filed by respondent No.7 herein nQmeJy Anil G^lcha bearing registratlon number VyfP, been dismlssed by this Court vide order ^^^^^" XI-HG—78 T^T ^[RT<r!^, ^tl1<rS^I<o, [^<ni<H^< T 'STT^T ^T f<^i4i' '^T^H W^T'^RT^' NTHC'fT^HK^ •^200 ^TI^T "q^W (^lf^^T) ^<nw^f^T^n^r -^' parents were harassed by State be directed to seve <=r)i^fd<fli TTR^f ^f "fexst <Fn^i< ^ 3tRW3TT^T dated 103.2008 <md th^ gnevance of 1+ie petitioners stands redressed* hsowever, it wc^s argued that the petitioner No.l and his ^he police authoritles and therefore, the titijo! •eiy punish the potice officers invoived in harassment of the petiti^ner No*l and his parents. Reiiance is pjaced ors the Judgment of Singh Vs. Stat®of U.P. 3499. 3, In the instant case it c^pe| each other which was nd petitioner Ho2 who mad^ separated. Respondent N for issuance of writ of hal Hon'bie Apex Court in the matter of Lata & Another reported in 2006 AIR SCW ars that 1+se petitioners were in iove witii t approved by the fami!y members of ail attempts to ensure that they are ^6 also fited writ petltion in this Court 3eas corpus which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2008. ^ 4. In the matl-er of Lata Sln^h (supra) the petitiorser had contracted inter-religious marriage w and on th© report of registered against her ultimGtely finai report Magistrate inter-aiia ment] ^ich was not approved by their parents ^ne petitioner's brol+ier offence was husbGnd and his three reiatives and 1 was subrnitted before the JudlcsGl oning that no offence was committed by the accused persons an^ they were granted baii, In the^ .,rr:.,^ '^ XI-HG—78 3TT^T ^T f^ri^ TTSH 3T?^T $^^s^~ i- ^ /r^^A ^ 's^r ^ii^id^, ^i^^^Ko, "f^ray iffwir ^*ii<^> •^200 sn^i •q^r ('^3^^) 'i^TW^ftn-sn^T -^ '£;J^6um^tances The pe+iTic^r against the accused perso^ the Qccused persons was Court directed that throughout the country wil major undergoes inter-ca^ woman or man who is a mali one nor subjected to threc gives such threats or hara^ses himseif or at his instigatior proceedings by the poiice action is taken against such | 5. However, in the facts of t|i petitioners or anybody fr( connection with any offenc themseives have admitted already redressea5 and the and tiierefore, the peti infructuous. chl^id^l^ 'RTR^Tf ^* 'feT=st <P»i<^i< ^aifiTHSTT^r WGS allowed, sessions tria! pending is was quashed ond the warrant against dso quashed and the Hon'bie Supreme ^he administration/poiice Quthorities see to it that if any boy or girl who is |te or inter-religious ?narriage with a jor, the coupie are not harassed by any i-s or acts of vioience, and any one who or commits acts of violence either I, is taken to task by instituting crimina! xgainst such persons and further stern persons as provided by !aw\ ie present case I do not find fnat the ^m their families were prosecuted in ^ On the other hGnd, the petitioners fiat the grievance raised by them ^tands jnstant petition has become Infructuous jion is dismissed as having become Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge