2024:HHC:10474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.12249 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Akansha Sharma & Anr. ……...Petitioners
Versus
State of HP & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul & Ms. Sheetal Kaul,
Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
(Oral)
Petitioners herein, who have solemnized marriage against
the wishes of parents of petitioner No. 1, have approached this Court
in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to respondents
No. 1 to 4 to provide them adequate protection and security on
account of threats being received by them from respondents No. 5 to
8.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge, from the record
are that petitioners, who are major, have solemnized marriage of their
own volition and without any external pressure as is evident from the
Marriage Certificate placed on record. Though parents of the petitioner
No. 2 have no objection to the marriage of their son with the petitioner
No. 1, but it appears that parents of petitioner No. 1 were opposed to
2
2024:HHC:10474
marriage of their daughter with petitioner No. 2 and as such, constant
threats are being allegedly extended to both the petitioners by
respondents No. 5 to 8. In the aforesaid background, petitioners
herein though at first instance have approached Superintendent of
Police, Kangra, for providing adequate security and protection, but
since such prayer of them was not exceeded to by the afore authority,
they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General,
while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, states
that request, if any, made by the petitioners shall be considered
strictly in accordance with law. He states that otherwise also
respondents No. 1 to 4 are under obligation to protect the life and
property of the petitioners, who admittedly at this juncture reside at
Village Uppar Sawana, Tehsil Jaswan, under Police Station Dehra,
District Kangra, HP. Though no cogent and convincing evidence has
been adduced on record by the petitioners suggestive of the fact that
they are being threatened by respondents No. 5 to 8, but this Court
having taken note of fact that petitioner No. 1 has solemnized
marriage with the petitioner No. 2 against the wishes of her parents,
sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of
petitioners to the extent that as and when application is filed by them
before Superintendent of Police, Kangra, for providing adequate
security, same shall be considered and decided by the authority
3
2024:HHC:10474
concerned taking note of potential threat, if any, to the life and
property of the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, being
aggrieved, if any, on account of registration of case at the behest of
parents of petitioner No. 1 in the State of Haryana and Delhi,
petitioners may have to approach competent Court of law in State of
Haryana/Delhi, but certainly they are required to be provided
adequate security and protection in the State of Himachal Pradesh
that too after being satisfied that on account of marriage, there is
potential threat to their life and property.
Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
October 29, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(Sunil)