CRM No.M-33282 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-33282 of 2010 Date of Decision:12.11.2010 Manjit Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in this petition is that petitioner-Manjit Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh, filed the present petition for issuance of directions to respondent Nos.2 and 3, to carry out the investigation of the indicated case with regard to missing of her daughter Harpreet Kaur(respondent No.4), who claimed to have performed her marriage with Simranjit Singh (respondent No.5) against her(Manjit Kaur) wishes. 2. What is not disputed here is that Harpreet Kaur(wife)-respondent No.4, daughter of the petitioner and Simranjit Singh(husband)-respondent No.5, claiming themselves to be the major and having performed their marriage against the wishes of their parents, moved a petition bearing CRM No.M-30778 of 2010, for granting them protection to their lives and liberty from the respondents (including the petitioner). The petition came to be disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 15.10.2010(Annexure P-4). The operative part of which is, as under:- “The petitioners claiming themselves to be major, submitted that they have performed their marriage against the wishes of the parents. They apprehend danger to their lives from respondent CRM No.M-33282 of 2010 2 Nos.4 to 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and without commenting and expressing any opinion with regard to the age of the parties and the validity of their marriage, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are restrained from taking petitioner No.2(husband) into custody, pertaining to the allegations that he has kidnapped, abducted and raped petitioner No.1(wife), without recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. They are further directed to protect their lives and liberty, in view of the observations of this Court in case Pardeep Kumar and another Versus State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) RCR(Criminal) 376. At the same time, respondent Nos.4 to 7 are restrained from interfering in the peaceful living/lives of the petitioners.” It is not a matter of dispute that the order(Annexure P-4) has already attained the finality. 3. In this view of the matter, as no ground for issuance of directions to the respondents to carry out the investigation against Simranjit Singh(husband)- respondent No.5, as claimed by the petitioner, is made out, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 12, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE