High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 12 J&K CK 0013

Ab. Rahim and Another vs State and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 26 December 2002 · Citation: (2010) 4 JKJ 198

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. L. Bhat, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Others Writ Petition (OWP) No. 1018 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 385 words

B.L. Bhat, Judge

1.

Considered. Admit.

2.

The points involved in this writ petition are so simple that this can be decided without issuing notice to the private respondents. With the consent

of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for final disposal.

3.

Through the medium of this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution read with section 103 of the Constitution of the J&K State, the

petitioner has sought indulgence of this court for issuance of direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to provide appropriate protection to the

petitioners.

4.

Precisely speaking the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the residents of the J&K State and are related as father and daughter.

That the petitioner-2, who is a student is yet unmarried but stands engaged with one Mushtaq S/o Ghulam Ahmad Bhat R/o Gool Jaba. That

respondent-6, who is a surrendered militant has offered his proposal to petitioner-1 forgiving his daughter Jamila Bano, petitioner-2 is marriage to

him when she stand already............engaged with the said Mushtaq Ahmed. That respondent-6, who is surrendered militant, has very good terms

with respondent-4, SHO, Police Station, Gool as a result of which the petitioners request for help from the said respondent has all along been

futile. That the official respondents are under obligation to perform public duties by giving protection of life and property to the petitioners.

5.

The writ petition is supported with an affidavit of the petitioners.

6.

Having regard to section 149 Cr. PC which imposes duty on every Police Officer to prevent committing of cognizable offence, with the direction

that he must to the best of his ability interpose preventing commission of such offence. The averments made in this petition reveal that the

respondent-6, who is a surrendered militant, is bent upon to abduct the peiitioner-2, which is an offence u/s 336 RPC, therefore, u/s 149 supra, it

is the duty of the official respondents to interpose to the best of their ability and prevent the commission of the said offence. Thus, the writ petition

is allowed and a command is issued in the name of official respondents to take all necessary measures to prevent forcible marriage of petitioner-2

by respondent-6 and also to provide petitioner the necessary protection of life and their property.