Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-33609 of 2013 Date of decision:29.01.2014 Rajni Kumari & another ..Petitioners versus State of Punjab & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.P.S.Grewal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6....TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
(ORAL).This order shall dispose of the present petition that had been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for issuance of directions to the official respondents No.1 to 3 for protection of life and liberty of the petitioners as they apprehended a threat at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6 on account of having got married against the wishes of their elders/parents.
On 04.10.2013, this Court had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and accordingly, had directed the petitioneRs.respondents No.4 to 6 as also parents of petitioner No.2 to join the mediation and conciliation proceedings.
It so transpires that the parties have since settled their dispute and the detailed compromise has been effected on account of intervention of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
The settlement and agreement arrived at between the parties has also been placed on record.
In terms thereof, the parties have agreed to resolve their Kaur Harjeet 2014.01.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-33609 of 2013 -2- differences amicably.
Parties have further agreed not to interfere in each others lives henceforth and further in recognition of effect that it was a run away marriage, petitioner No.2 i.e.Charanjit Kumar had undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac in the shape of FDR in the name of his wife i.e.Rajni Kumari, petitioner No.1.
Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6 and would reiterate the fact that the matter has since been compromised.
Counsel further apprises the Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has also been acted upon inasmuch as the requisite FDR of a sum of Rs.1 lac has been deposited in favour of petitioner No.1.
Learned State counsel has also today filed a reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and the same is taken on record.
Even a perusal of such reply would reveal that the statements of private respondents No.4 to 6 have been duly recorded and they have affirmed that there is no objection to the marriage of the petitioners and that they will not interfere in the married life of the petitioneRs.In the light of factual position noticed hereinabove, no further directions are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous.
January 29, 2014 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE Kaur Harjeet 2014.01.30 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document