IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. 20085 of 2010 in CRM-M No. 8891 of 2010 Date of decision:- 19.11.2010 Rajinder Kaur @ Rajwinder Kaur and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present:- Mr. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for applicant-respondent No. 6. Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab Mr. Sanjive Kodan, Advocate for non-applicant-petitioner. SABINA, J Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has stated that petitioner No. 2 Kuldeep Singh was already married with the respondent No. 6 and had thereafter filed the petition seeking protection of his life and liberty alleging that he had performed marriage with petitioner No. 1, Rajinder Kaur @ Rajwinder Kaur. The notice of application was issued to the respondents as well as counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel has submitted that on complaint filed by respondent No. 6-Baljinder Kaur, inquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioner No. 2 Kuldeep Singh was already married with Baljinder Kaur for the last four years. They were blessed with a CRM No. 20085 of 2010 in CRM-M No. 8891 of 2010 -2- son now aged two years. Kuldeep Singh left the matrimonial home on 21st March, 2010 and thereafter performed marriage with petitioner No. 1 at Chandigarh and had filed the petition seeking protection in this Court by concealing the factum of his earlier marriage with respondent No. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners has submitted that the petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners as per the instructions given by the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 had filed the petition seeking protection of his life and liberty along with Rajinder Kaur @ Rajwinder Kaur alleging that they had both performed marriage against the wishes of their parents and therefore, direction be issued for protection of their life and liberty, following order was passed on 25.3.2010 by this Court:- “Rajinder Kaur @ Rajwinder Kaur and Kuldeep Singh-petitioners have filed this petition under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty from the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5. “Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 22.3.2010. Certificate (Annexure P-4) in this regard has been issued by Adhyatmik Arya Samaj Mission, Chandigarh. The petitioners have not filed any representation before the police for seeking protection to their life and liberty as they are being chased by the family members of petitioner No. 2, who do not approve CRM No. 20085 of 2010 in CRM-M No. 8891 of 2010 -3- their marriage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cas, in case the petitioners approach Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar-respondent No. 2, for protection of their life and liberty then he is directed to look into the representation made by the petitioners and if required, necessary protection be provided to them. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.” Since the petitioners had not given the material facts while filing the petition and consequently order dated 25th March, 2010 was passed by this Court. In an enquiry conducted on an application moved by respondent No. 6 it has been found that petitioner No. 2 was already married to respondent No.6. It would be just and expedient that the order dated 25.3.2010 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order dated by 25th March, 2010 is set aside and consequently the Crl. Misc. M-8891 of 2010 stands dismissed. (SABINA) November 19, 2010 JUDGE shabha