Skip to content


Present: Mr. Munish Mittal Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Present: Mr. Munish Mittal Advocate

Respondent

State of Haryana and Others

Excerpt:


.....petitioner no.1 claims to have made a representation to superintendent of police, sirsa. firstly, there is no proof that this representation was, in fact, sent to superintendent of police, sirsa, as claimed by the petitioners as there is no postal receipt available on record nor any such receipt has been shown during the cours.of hearing and secondly, even if the representation is taken to have been sent to the police, the petitioners have rushed to this court on the very next day, i.e., on 24.01.2014 without allowing any time to the police to take note of the representation and take appropriate steps in the matter. virender singh adhikari 2014.01.27 19:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm-m-2975 of 2014 -2- in this view of the situation, no direction can be issued to the police as prayed for by the petitioners.however, without meaning to make any comment on the correctness of the averments made in the petition, including the validity of the marriage, this petition is disposed of with a direction to superintendent of police, sirsa, to consider and expeditiously dispose of the representation dated 23.01.2014 (annexure p-5) stated to.....

Judgment:


CRM-M-2975 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-2975 of 2014 Date of Decision: 27.01.2014 Annu and another ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN, J.

(ORAL) By way of this petition petitioners seek a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, to protect their lives and liberty as they claim to have married against the wishes of their parents.

It is stated in the petition that the petitioners entered into the matrimonial tie up on 23.01.2014 and on that very day, petitioner No.1 claims to have made a representation to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa.

Firstly, there is no proof that this representation was, in fact, sent to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, as claimed by the petitioners as there is no postal receipt available on record nor any such receipt has been shown during the couRs.of hearing and secondly, even if the representation is taken to have been sent to the police, the petitioners have rushed to this Court on the very next day, i.e., on 24.01.2014 without allowing any time to the police to take note of the representation and take appropriate steps in the matter.

Virender Singh Adhikari 2014.01.27 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-2975 of 2014 -2- In this view of the situation, no direction can be issued to the police as prayed for by the petitioneRs.However, without meaning to make any comment on the correctness of the averments made in the petition, including the validity of the marriage, this petition is disposed of with a direction to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, to consider and expeditiously dispose of the representation dated 23.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) stated to have been filed by petitioner No.1 before him.

(MAHAVIR S.

CHAUHAN) JUDGE2701.2014 adhikari Virender Singh Adhikari 2014.01.27 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //