Dismissed

Anshu Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2025WRIC/1555/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's writ petition seeking a direction to prevent interference in their peaceful marital life. Finding no serious threat perception or material evidence of peril to life and liberty, the Court dismissed the prayer for protection, noting police protection is discretionary and contingent on a real threat.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for direction directing respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's marital life and the request for police protection were rejected and the petition was disposed of.

Anshu Yadav and Another vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58045

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1555 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Anshu Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Nirbhay,Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful marital life of petitioners, has been sought.

¶9

Upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners and, therefore, there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them.

¶10

There is no material or reason for this Court to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril. There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.

¶11

In a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.

¶12

If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

¶13

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Ballia and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶14

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of

¶15

information preferred before the concerned police authorities for lodging any FIR against any illegal conduct carried out by the private respondents, if that be so, and no heed has ever been paid by the concerned police authorities, there is no specific averment available in the petition that any case has been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶16

In view thereof, no case made out for seeking indulgence of the Court over the prayer as made in the petition, hence, the same is hereby disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anshu Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Priya Sonkar and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Suman Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Khushbu Bharti and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajan vs State of U.P. and Another

Saraswati and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others