IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14243 of 2011 Date of decision : 07.09.2011 Shivani ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG Punjab Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 4 MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that she was forced to enter into relationship with respondent No. 4 who is her first cousin and now he is threatening to disturb her life with threats of elimination. Notice of motion was issued on 10.05.2011. Parties appeared through their counsels. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG Punjab referred to order passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-6957 of 2011 in which the petitioner has prayed that adequate protection be granted to her in view of the fact that she has contracted marriage with respondent No. 4 against parental consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been in degree of prohibited Crl. Misc. No. M-14243 of 2011 2 relationship. The marriage would be void and further she can not be forced to live against her wishes. He prays that police authorities should be directed to protect her so that she may not be forced to reside with respondent No. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the petition is frivolous. The petitioner feigns ignorance about the earlier proceedings before this Court even though the order is noticing that the petitioner was present in the Court. Be that as it may, the earlier order passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-6957 of 2011 has specifically noticed that there is no confirmation of legitimacy or authenticity to the factum of marriage having been performed by the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and the only direction which was given in the said order was to the effect that SSP Ludhiana was directed to look into allegations as contained in the said petition personally and take necessary steps in accordance with law, if the situation warranted. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has unnecessarily invoked jurisdiction of this Court without there being any substantial grievance. The Court had issued notice of motion purely out of concern for the safety of the petitioner and for the reasons that there was suspicion in the mind of the Court that the petitioner has been forced to enter into relationship. However, in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not wish to comment upon this aspect of the matter in the absence of any mechanism to verify such allegations. Suffice it to say, prima facie, it appears from the record that the petitioner's allegations are Crl. Misc. No. M-14243 of 2011 3 uninspiring to say that she was forced to live with respondent No. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was being forced to live with respondent No. 4 is also seemingly misplaced as she is stated to be living with her mother, however, the Court feels that no matter what the relationship of the petitioner with respondent No. 4, he still can not harass the petitioner and it is directed to this limited extent that respondent No. 2 shall look into the matter and ensure that the petitioner is not harassed at the hands of the said respondent. Petition stands Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 07.09.2011 JUDGE reena