Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.8835 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 19, 2013 Inderjeet Kaur & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.***** RANJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner No.1 earlier had approached this Court through CRM-M No.4302 of 2013 seeking protection on the ground that she has married a person, who was not of liking of her parents.
When this petition came up for hearing before this Court, the counsel appeared on behalf of the parents of petitioner No.1 and pointed out before the Court that petitioner No.1 was already married three years ago.
Her husband was also present.
She conceded this fact before the Court.
Still, she insisted on staying with the person with whom she had allegedly performed this second marriage.
Though the second marriage was illegal, but still she was granted protection by this Court being citizen and under threat.
Notice was issued.
On the next date of hearing, counsel for petitioner No.1 made a statement before the Court that the matter has been compromised and petitioner No.1 has decided to stay with her parents.
Further statement was made that petitioner No.1 and the parents would not like to take any action against any person.
The Criminal Misc.-M No.8835 of 2013 (O&M) :2: petition was accordingly disposed of.
The petitioners have not filed this petition seeking direction for registration of a case against respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Respondent No.4 is a person with whom she had eloped and had performed a second marriage.
Her plea that she being illiterate could not understand the proceedings can not be accepted as she was represented by a counsel on that day.
In fact, the court had spoken to petitioner No.1 when she conceded to have performed second marriage.
After having stated before the court that petitioner No.1 and her family do not wish to take any action, they can not No.be heard to complain for action against the respondents.
Petitioner No.1 is responsible for all this mess and not wants to initiate action against a person with whom she had herself performed illegal marriage.
Her parents had then pleaded with her to retreat but she was adament.
Except for wasting time of the Court, there is no purpose for this approach.
She not has turned around and again wants an action against a person with whom she has run away.
This petition is totally misconceived and is dismissed.
March 19, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE