Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. BHARTI SAGAR AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Bharti Sagar And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 13701 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7956 (27 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Judgment reserved on 16.4.2007

Judgment delivered on 27.4.2007

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13701 of 2007

Smt. Bharti Sagar & Anr.

Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.,

*******

Hon. Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioners who claim that they are major and had married on 8th February, 2007 have filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life by adopting coercive measures.

It has been stated in paragraph no. 13 of the petition that the parents of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bharti Sagar are creating problems in the married life of the petitioners with the help of Police Station C.B. Ganj, Bareilly, while in paragraph 14 of the writ petition it has been stated that the police of Police Station C.B. Ganj with the help of respondent no. 5 who is none other than the father of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bharti Sagar is adopting coercive measures against the petitioners and is trying to arrest them. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it has been stated that on 22nd February, 2007 one Sub-Inspector and two Constables of Police Station C.B. Ganj went to the house of petitioner No. 2 Sri Shyam Singh for arresting the petitioners but as the petitioners were not present, they left after giving a warning that petitioners should surrender before the police authorities. In paragraph 17 of the petition it has been stated that Police Constable again went to the house of petitioner no. 2. In paragraph 20 of the petition it has been stated that respondent no. 5 is adopting coercive measures against the petitioners with the help of police of Police Station C.B. Ganj, district Bareilly.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 4 namely the District Magistrate, Bareilly, Senior Superintendent of Police Bareilly and the Station Officer, Police Station C.B. Ganj district Bareilly. It has been categorically stated that the family members of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bharti Sagar has not filed any complaint or First Information Report against the petitioners and the Station Officer C.B. Ganj district Bareilly did not go to the residence of the petitioners at any time for taking any action against them. The contents of paragraph 13 of the petition have been denied and it has been stated that the police have not taken any action against the petitioners. The contents of paragraph no. 16 and 17 of the writ petition have also been denied and it has been specifically stated that the police did not go to the petitioners' house with respondent no. 5.

The averments made in the counter affidavit clearly show that the apprehension of the petitioners' that the police is taking some action against them at the behest of respondent no. 5 is not correct.

A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5. A dispute has been raised about the age of petitioner no. 2 and it has been stated that no marriage had taken place. It is, however, not necessary to adjudicate upon this issue in the present petition as this petition has been filed only for a direction upon the police authorities not to harass the petitioners which fact has been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State authorities.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court should issue the necessary directions in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475. A perusal of the said judgment clearly indicates that the petition before the Supreme Court had been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the Sessions Trial No. 1201 of 2001 under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of First Information Report No. 336 of 2000 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. In the present case, the police authorities have specifically denied that any action had taken against the petitioners and no First Information Report or complaint had been lodged against the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners is based only on apprehensions and, therefore, no relief can be granted.  

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.      

Date: 27.4.2007

NSC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.