IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (CRL) No. 2154 of 2018
Smt. Sharmila Rana and another. ……....Petitioners. Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Dated: 26thNovember, 2018
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)
This is yet another case where a young couple, who married on their own, without their parents' consent, chose to lodge a complaint, and have thereafter rushed to this Court complaining of a threat to their lives and seek a direction to the police to provide them protection. The marriage of the petitioners was solemnized before a priest on 17.11.2018, and was registered two days thereafter on 19.11.2018. Immediately on the next day, they sent a letter to the police officials seeking police protection. In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, all that is stated is that, because of the fact that police protection was not provided, the petitioners are constrained to live in different places outside their permanent address; the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension of a danger to their life and liberty; they are compelled to leave their residence, and start residing elsewhere; and the petitioners are continuously receiving threats to their lives and of dire consequences. No particulars have been furnished, in the writ affidavit, of the mode and manner in which they received a threat to their lives or of the person who had threatened them with dire consequences.
2. Both the petitioners are present in Court today. When we asked the girl as to what apprehension she had of a threat to her life,
1
2
she informed us that she is the eldest of six daughters of her parents, and her father had threatened her with dire consequences.
3. Mere discontent of the parents, with their daughter having married on her own accord and without their consent, cannot, by itself, be construed as a threat to the lives of the petitioners herein. It would be wholly inappropriate for us, on the basis of such bald and vague assertions in the writ affidavit, to call upon the police officials to provide police protection. While we see no reason to entertain the writ petition, suffice it to make it clear that, in case the complaint lodged by the petitioners make out a cognizable offence, the respondent-police officials shall take action, based on such complaint, in accordance with law.
4. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Needless to state that, in case of a serious threat to their lives, this order shall not disable the petitioners from availing such legal remedies as are available to them in law.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
26.11.2018 26.11.2018
Rathour
Comments