IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.22146 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2011 Harpreet Kaur & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Davinder Kaur, Advocate, for Mr.Divjyot S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr.Arnav Sood, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 8. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Harpreet Kaur and Hardeep Singh have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection of their life and liberty on the ground that they had married against the wishes of their parents and accordingly there is a threat to their life and liberty. On the basis of averments made in the petition, this Court issued notice of motion and directed respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala to look into the matter and take appropriate steps, if the circumstances so warranted. Subsequently, however, this court noticed that an FIR was registered thereafter on the statement made by petitioner No.1 Harpreet Kaur for offences under Sections 376, 363, 366, 506, 120-B IPC on 27.7.2011. State counsel had then sought adjournment to address the court as to the circumstances under which this FIR was registered despite the Criminal Misc.-M No.22146 of 2011 (O&M) :2: approach made by the petitioners before this Court. The case was then adjourned and finally it was noticed that Harpreet Kaur had herself gone to the police station to make a complaint of her abduction and commission of various other offences on 27.7.2011. This Court accordingly noticed this fact on 4.11.2011 and required the presence of petitioner Harpreet Kaur before this Court. Today a written request has been made for adjournment. While the case was being heard, State counsel invites the attention of the court to the order passed on 4.11.2011. It then transpires that petitioner Harpreet Kaur is present in the Court alongwith her parents. I have spoken to her and Harpreet Kaur has confirmed this fact that she has made these allegations of abduction and of offence under Section 376 IPC against petitioner No.2 etc. Petitioner Harpreet Kaur says that she was forced for this marriage and accordingly had not voluntarily approached this Court through the present petition. The FIR has already been registered against petitioner No.2 and others involved in this case. It is also worth notice that the Court of Sessions has already granted bail to petitioner No.2 on the basis of order passed by this Court granting protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners. Now the application for bail is fixed for 28.11.2011. Since petitioner Harpreet Kaur has now given a different version, the resultant affect on the case would be seen by the trial Court or the Court dealing with the prayer for bail moved by petitioner No.2. The court of Sessions would keep in mind this fact that statement has been made by petitioner Harpreet Kaur that she was forced to get married and she is making allegations of offences as alleged in the FIR. The law will take its own course. No case for continuing grant of protection, which may have been passed for directing the official respondents to ensure protection of life and liberty, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE