Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1822 (RAJ)

Meenakshi Dixit v. State of Rajasthan

2015-10-28

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2015
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.— This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Meenakshi Dixit and Ashutosh Patwari, who are both major and claim to have attracted and married with each other. They have approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents-State authorities may be directed to provide them adequate security and that the direction be issued that they shall not be harassed either by police authorities or respondent No. 4-father of petitioner No. 1 Meenakshi Dixit, who according to them is opposed to their marriage. Opposition to the marriage is owing to the fact that this is an intercaste marriage. Not only the father but other family members of petitioner No. 1 have also not accepted the marriage. Father of Petitioner No. 1 Shri Pawan Kumar Dixit lodged the FIR against petitioner No. 2-Ashutosh Patwari and, thereafter, he also filed a complaint under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikar against petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 4 threatened petitioner No. 2 that if petitioner No. 1 does not return to the parental house, he will face the dire consequences. Petitioners are continuously receiving threats and danger to their lives. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record marriage certificate of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that habeas corpus petition even in such circumstances can be maintained. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMD Kiran Pasa vs. Government of Andra Pradesh : (1990) 1 SCC 328 . 3. Shri Vijay Poonia, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has denied the allegations that respondent No. 4 has threatened the petitioner and that there is any apprehension or danger to their lives. He has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal vs. Distt. Magistrate Darjeeling: 1974 AIR 510 and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, habeas corpus petition would not be maintainable. 4. He has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal vs. Distt. Magistrate Darjeeling: 1974 AIR 510 and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, habeas corpus petition would not be maintainable. 4. Shri B.N. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General submits that on inquiry being made by the police, it is revealed that the petitioners have indeed married with each other and that they are major, however complaint has been received in the police station at the instance of respondent No. 4 Pawan Kumar Dixit through SDM Sikar on 6thJuly, 2015 that her daughter has been kidnapped by Ashutosh Patwari, resident of brother-in-law at Surat that his daughter is missing since 7th July, 2015. On that basis, MPR No. 10/2015 was registered at Police Station Dadiya Distt. Sikar. 5. In the facts of the case, even if we do not go into the question of maintainability of this petition as habeas corpus, we can yet decide the matter as a normal writ petition because both the petitioners are present before us. They are major and they state that they have married with each other out of their free-will. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs. State of Utter Pradesh & Anr.: (2006) 5 SCC 475 = RLW 2006(4) SC 2735, the police is duty bound to give protection to the couple wherever they wish to go and stay. We, therefore, dispose of the petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar to provide them security even if they want to stay at Sikar. This order shall also apply to other police stations, if they want to stay at any other place for protection in case of any threat to them. The proceedings in MPR No. 10/2015 lodged with Police Station Dadiya and proceedings under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikar shall stand closed and no action on that behalf shall be taken against them on that basis.