In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-414 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:8.1.2010 Richa Sehgal alias Richa Nayer .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Deepak Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parveen Kumar Vohra, Advocate for the respondents No. 6 and 7. ..... S.S. Saron, J. As the case was taken up, Mr. Parveen Kumar Vohra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Shri Krishan Sehgal (respondent No.6) who is the father of petitioner No.1. The vakalatnama filed by him in Court today is taken on record. The petitioners have solemnized their marriage amongst themselves on 6.1.2010. The certificate of marriage (Annexure-P.3) issued by the Swamyamvar Sanskar Foundation, U.T., Chandigarh and photographs (Annexure-P.4) regarding the solemnization of marriage have been placed on record. Both the petitioners, it is stated are major. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 as per her Matriculation certificate (Annexure- P.1) issued by the Punjab School Education Board is 20.2.1987 and that of petitioner No.2 as per his passport (Annexure-P.2) is 6.2.1984. On account of the marriage that has been solemnized the petitioners apprehend their false implication in a criminal case besides harassment from respondents Cr. Misc. No.M-414 of 2010 [2] No.6 to 10, who are the parents and uncles of petitioner No.1. 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. Besides, she is happy with her marriage. Shri Parveen Kumar Vohra, Advocate appearing for Shri Krishan Lal Sehgal (respondent No.6) has submitted that respondents No.6 has no serious objection to the marriage, however, it should be performed in a proper manner in the presence of all. It is submitted that the petitioners should have no grouse in case the wishes of the parents of petitioner No.1 to solemnize regular marriage are fulfilled. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from petitioner No.1, has submitted that, in any case, the petitioners should be given protection. Mr. Parveen Kumar Vohra, Advocate, however, submitted that there is no need for providing protection to the petitioners as the parents only want that a proper and decent marriage be solemnized so that the marriage is properly recognized. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no objection to the marriage but the petitioners apprehend danger and some directions be issued for protecting them. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 to 5 that in case the petitioners approach any of them setting out their grievance of harassment on account of the marriage Cr. Misc. No.M-414 of 2010 [3] solemnized by the petitioners amongst themselves, the same shall be duly considered and looked into by them independently and in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioners to have their marriage solemnized as per wishes of the parents (respondents No.6 and 7) of petitioner No.1. January 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*