Disposed¶22

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

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WRIC/19999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection; peaceful marital life; mandamus; threat perception; life and liberty; representation before SP/SSP Sambhal; Section 175(3) BNSS; WRIT - C No. - 19999 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; September 11, 2025; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no requirement to pass any order providing police protection. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful marital life. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Since the petitioners had moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, the concerned police will do the needful in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no requirement to pass any order providing police protection.

¶13

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, and no evidence that the private respondents were likely to cause physical or mental assault.ratio¶14
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to a couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶15
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; the Courts and police authorities are available if any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of a writ petition (WRIT - C No. - 19999 of 2025) by Smt. Pooja and another seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception on the pleadings and no material indicating that the petitioners' life and liberty were at peril, observing that while security may be provided in a deserving case, it cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat. Noting the petitioners' representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, the Court observed that the concerned police will do the needful in accordance with law if a real threat perception is found. The Court further observed there was no specific averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 19999 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Pooja And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mithilesh Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 77

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent

¶18

WRIC No. 19999 of 2025

¶19

¶20

of Police, Sambhal and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

September 11, 2025 #Vik/-

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases