In this case, a petition was filed by Petitioner 1, Shahrukh Khan and Petitioner 2 Smt. Taniya under Section 482 of the CrPC for protection of their life and personal liberty. The petitioners were legal adults and were eligible to legally marry each other. Their marriage (NIKKAH) was solemnized on 10-03-2021. But the Private Respondent, Shri Mohammad Aslam was not in favour of this marriage and therefore he started to threaten the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners urged the court to provide police protection as their life and personal liberty were in danger.
Arguments Before the Court
The learned counsel of the petitioners contended that the petitioners were validly married to each other. Moreover, they were major and could marry the person of their choice or take any other decisions by themselves. Further, it was contended that society cannot unnecessarily interfere in their decisions. But the private respondent had some own personal views because of which he was not in favour of the petitioners’ marriage. Because of his dissent on their marriage, the private respondent started to threaten the petitioners. However, this threatening by the respondent posed a danger to petitioners’ life and personal liberty. Thus, the petitioners in this case should be granted police protection for the same. In addition, the Learned public prosecutor sought the issuance of the appropriate directions.
The court, in this case, observed some prominent judgements penned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Lata Singh vs. State of UP [ AIR 2006 SC 2522], S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600], Indra Sarma vs. VKV Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755] and Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan KM & Ors. [(2018) 16 SCC 368], said that is a well-decided fact that society can’t interfere in the lives of two individuals especially when they are major. If the relation between the two individuals seems to be unsocial from the societal point of view then also society cannot interfere in their lives. So, in the present case as well the society can’t interfere in the decision of the petitioners to marry each other. Thus, the petitioners should be provided with police protection. Besides, it is also given in Article 21 of the constitution that the life and personal liberty of an individual needs to be protected except according to the procedure established by law. Furthermore, Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2017 bounds every police officer to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.
Without checking the genuineness and correctness of the allegations of the petitioners the court disposed of the said petition. Then further the court engaged the learned counsel of the petitioners and the Station House Officer in the following manner. The learned counsel of the petitioners was given a duty to send a copy of the petition along with its annexures through a registered source (post/ e-mail) to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station. And then the Station House officer was required to treat the same as a complaint and take necessary preventive measures and other steps to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners in accordance with the law. But the Court also said that “As a precautionary note, this order shall not come in the way of any other civil/criminal case, if any, and such case would take its own course as per law.”
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.