Crl. Misc. No.48728 of 2009 and - 1 - CRM-M-26832 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No.48728 of 2009 and CRM-M-26832 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2009 **** Savita Kumari and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioners. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.48728 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-26832 of 2009 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are seeking direction from this Court against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect their life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos.3 to 5 as they have married against their wishes. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 belongs to Mehra (Hindu) caste whereas petitioner No.2 belongs to Mahsa (Scheduled Caste). Due to the inter-caste marriage, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are unhappy with the marriage and therefore they exerted threats to them. In the petition, the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is stated to be 15.4.1991 and date of birth of petitioner No.2 is stated to be 14.12.1985. The marriage was alleged to have been performed on 19.09.2009 as per Hindu Rites in Mahrishi Balmiki Mandir, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the Case of Ridhwana and another Vs. U.T. Administration and others” 2008(4) RCR Crl. Misc. No.48728 of 2009 and - 2 - CRM-M-26832 of 2009 (Criminal) 242. It is also submitted that before approaching this Court, the petitioners have also approached Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur-respondent No.2 on 19.9.2009 for providing them security. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to look into the representation (Annexure P-5), which is alleged to have been filed by the petitioners. In case, he finds that the petitioners have got married, adequate security should be provided to them to protect their life and liberty if they are facing threats from respondents No.4 and 5. With these directions, this petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 JUDGE vivek