IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12222 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.4.2010 Baljit Kaur and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 is Station House Officer, Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and respondent No.4 in fact is Station House Officer, Police Station Mukerian. However, Police Station Dasuya has inadvertently been again written as respondent No.4. It is prayed that he may be allowed to correct the same in the original petition. Permitted to do so. Learned counsel may correct respondents No.4 as Station House Officer, Police Station Mukerian instead of Station House Officer, Police Station Dasuya. Corrections have been carried out and signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are a newly married couple. The present petition has been filed by them for directing respondents No.1 to 4 to Crl. Misc. No. M-12222 of 2010 [2] protect their life and liberty and also not to implicate them in a false criminal case at the behest of respondents No.5 and 6 who are the parents of petitioner No.1. Both the petitioners, it is stated, are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her matriculation certificate (Annexure P1) is 12.5.1990 and that of petitioner No.2 as per his matriculation certificate (Annexure P2) is 15.10.1986. The petitioners were studying in the same school and they knew each other for the last 5 years. They had a liking for each other and kept meeting each other. They finally decided to solemnize their marriage amongst themselves. Petitioner No.1 spoke to her mother (respondent No.6) about the marriage who refused by saying that the other relatives would not allow the marriage as there was no tradition in their family for allowing the girl to choose her own life partner. She also threatened petitioner No.1 from going ahead with the marriage and not to insist on this marriage as this would bring disrepute for their family. In the meantime, father (respondent No.5) of the petitioner looked for a suitable match for petitioner No.1. On this petitioner No.1 refused and stated that she would marry only petitioner No.2 and no one else. The father (respondent No.5) of petitioner No.1 was, however, opposed to this marriage. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 informed petitioner No.2 about the entire incident. They both left the place for a safe destination and they solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 22.4.2010. The marriage was solemnized by the petitioners at Gurudwara Guru Ka Bagh Akali Bunga Nihang Singhan, Khudda Ali Sher, UT, Chandigarh. The photographs (Annexure P3) of marriage and certificate (Annexure P4) of marriage Crl. Misc. No. M-12222 of 2010 [3] issued by Gurudwara Guru Ka Bagh Akali Bunga Nihang Singhan, Khudda Ali Sher, UT, Chandigarh have been placed on record. After marriage petitioner No.2 informed his parents regarding his marriage on which they asked him not to come back to the village as relatives of petitioner No.1 had got knowledge of the marriage and they had threatened to take serious action against their family. Since then, the petitioner are running for a safe shelter and they cannot go back to their home until they are not provided adequate security. It is also stated that petitioner No.1 also submitted an application dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure P5) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.2) seeking protection of her life and liberty. It is stated by petitioner No.1 that she left the house of her parents and solemnized her marriage with Davinder Kumar (petitioner No.2) as per Sikh rites on 22.4.2010. Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. It is stated by petitioner No.1 that she has solemnized her marriage with petitioner No.2 of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. She is happy with her marriage. It is also stated that petitioner No.2 is well- settled and is earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 that in case the petitioners approach any of them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition, the same would be looked into by them independently and in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) Crl. Misc. No. M-12222 of 2010 [4] JUDGE April 28, 2010 amit