Crl. Misc . No. M-31563 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc . No. M-31563 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 11, 2009 Pooja Randhawa and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab. S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed seeking directions to respondents no. 1 to 3 to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners who apprehend threat to their life and liberty from respondent no. 4 who is the father of petitioner no. 1. The petitioners had a liking for each other and, therefore, they decided to solemnize their marriage amongst themselves. When this fact was disclosed to the father (respondent no. 4) of petitioner no. 1 he got furious. He stated that in case petitioner no. 1 solemnizes her marriage with petitioner no. 2, then they both have to face dire consequences. It is submitted that both the petitioners are major and the date of birth of petitioner no. 1, as per her matriculation certificate (Annexure P-1) is 30.08.1991 and that of petitioner no. 2 as per his Middle Level Examination Crl. Misc . No. M-31563 of 2009 2 Certificate (Annexure P-2) is 23.08.1988. The petitioners, on their own have solemnized their marriage on 05.11.2009 in a local temple. The certificate (Annexure P-3) of marriage issued by Shiv Samrat Jyotish Karyalaya, Astrologer and Pandit Mohan Lal Shastri, (Karam Kand Expert) as also photographs (Annexure P-4) regarding solemnization of the marriage have been placed on record. After the marriage, the petitioners sought blessings of respondent no. 4, but he threatened them with dire consequences. The petitioners, therefore, apprehend danger to their life and liberty. A representation dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure P-5) was submitted by petitioner no. 1 to SSP Jalandhar (Respondent no. 2). However, despite the said representation (Annexure P-5), the threat persists. Notice of motion was issued on 10.11.2009 for today. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has put in appearance for respondent no. 1 to 3. Notice issued to respondent no. 4 has not been received back served or otherwise, as per office report. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the statement of Tarsem Lal (respondent no. 4) has been recorded by the police and he has stated that he has disowned his daughter and he has no concern with the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to respondents no. 2 and 3 that in case the petitioners apprach any of them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition, the same shall be duly considered and looked into by them in accordance with law. 11.12.2009 (S.S. SARON) shivani JUDGE