In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 31063 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on 05.11.2009. Sumita and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.K.Panwar,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Jasbir Mor,Advocate,for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') vide which the petitioners have sought a direction from this Court to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to protect their lives and liberty which is being threatened at the hands of respondent Nos.6 to 8 because they have got married against their wishes. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner No.1(Sumita) is 19 years of age having been born on 16.9.1990 as per Secondary School Examination Certificate (Annexure P-1) and Parveen Kumar (Petitioner No.2) is 21 years of age having been born on 04.5.1988 as per Matriculation Certificate (Annexure P-2). Both of them have got married on 02.11.2009 at Shiv Mandir Rally, Sector 12-A, Panchkula. Photographs of marriage are attached as Annexure P-4 and Certificate CRM-M 31063 of 2009 (O&M) -2- of Marriage is attached as Annexure P-3. It is submitted that before approaching this Court, petitioner No,.1 had filed an application (Annexure P5) to S.P.Karnal. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr.Jasbir Mor Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and has prayed that petitioner No.1 may be allowed to have audience with her mother Savitri. This Court allowed the request. After having some talk with petitioner No.1, her mother Savitri has stated that she does not have any grievance so far as their marriage is concerned. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent Nos 6 to 8 that they would not interfere in the matrimonial lives of the petitioners and would not give any threat to their lives and liberty. In view of the above, since there is no threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners which was earlier being perceived, this petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. 05.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge