Disposed¶21

Smt Pratiksha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WRIC/19251/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition dismissed/disposed; peaceful marital life; mandamus against interference by relatives; no serious threat perception; security cannot be claimed as a matter of right; representation before Shahjahanpur police; earlier protection discontinued subject to fresh assessment by police authority; Section 175(3) BNSS; WRIT - C No. 19251 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; September 11, 2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court does not find any serious threat perception to the petitioners, and therefore there is no requirement of passing any order providing police protection to them. ¶12

Smt Pratiksha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life (and provide police protection).

¶11

Court's answer

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

¶12

Ratio / Principle

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

¶13

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶14
If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, courts and police authorities are available, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.ratio¶15
Since the petitioners have already moved a representation before the concerned police authorities, Shahjahanpur, if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 19251 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Saurabh Srivastava, J., decided September 11, 2025): Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, effectively seeking police protection. Held, on perusal of the pleadings there was no serious threat perception and no material to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault. While in a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat; courts and police remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them. Noting that the petitioners had already moved a representation before the concerned police authorities, Shahjahanpur, the Court observed that if the police finds a real threat perception it will do the needful in accordance with law. The Court also observed that no specific application under Section 175(3) of BNSS was averred. The petition was disposed of, and the protection granted earlier to the petitioners was discontinued, any extension being subject to fresh assessment by the concerned police authority.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19251 of 2025

¶3

Smt Pratiksha Devi And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Gaurav Gupta .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 77

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the concerned police authorities, Shahjahanpur and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the

¶17

WRIC No. 19251 of 2025

¶18

¶19

needful in accordance with law.

¶20

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

However, it is made clear that the protection granted earlier to the petitioners is hereby discontinued and extension shall be subject to fresh assessment made by concerned police authority.

¶23

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

September 11, 2025 #Vik/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Pratiksha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pratiksha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases