Disposed¶21

Smt. Pooja Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025WRIC/19717/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT-C 19717 of 2025, Allahabad High Court (Court No. 77), Smt. Pooja Rani and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided 10-09-2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. Petition for police protection/mandamus restraining respondents' interference in petitioners' peaceful marital life DISPOSED OF without orders: no serious threat perception found; no iota of evidence private respondents (relatives) would cause assault; representation already pending before SP/SSP Bijnor to be acted on per law if real threat found; no FIR information lodged and no averment of institution under Section 175(3) of BNSS; security not claimable as of right absent serious threat.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court did not issue the mandamus direction sought nor order police protection. ¶21

Smt. Pooja Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Court did not issue the mandamus direction sought nor order police protection.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction in the nature of mandamus should issue directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

In view of the foregoing, no case is made out for seeking the indulgence of the Court over the prayer made in the petition; hence the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

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 for providing police protection to them.

¶12

Key takeaways

There is no material or reason for the Court 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 of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.ratio¶13
General principle stated by the Court: in a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.obiter¶14
General principle stated by the Court: courts and police authorities stand ready to rescue persons who are misbehaved with or manhandled, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.; decided September 10, 2025) disposed of WRIT-C No. 19717 of 2025 (Smt. Pooja Rani and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others) without orders. The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life, i.e. police protection. On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception, no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court observed that in a deserving case security can be provided, but a couple cannot claim it as a matter of course or right; courts and police authorities remain available if anyone misbehaves or manhandles them. The petitioners had already moved a representation before the SP/SSP, Bijnor, who will act in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found. It was further noted that no information had been lodged for an FIR against the private respondents' alleged illegal conduct and the petition contained no averment of any case instituted pursuant to Section 175(3) of BNSS. No case being made out for judicial indulgence over the prayer, the writ was disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19717 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Pooja Rani And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manoj Kumar Gautam .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 77

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the 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 Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Bijnor and in case the concerned police finds a real threat

¶17

WRIC No. 19717 of 2025

¶18

¶19

perception, they will do the 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

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶23

September 10, 2025 #Vik/-

¶24

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

Smt. Pooja Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases