Disposed¶15

Nasreen Jahan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2025WRIC/20026/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition; mandamus; peaceful marital life; threat perception; life and liberty; private respondents relatives; security as matter of right denied; representation Superintendent of Police Moradabad; Section 175(3) BNSS; WRIT-C 20026 of 2025; Nasreen Jahan v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Srivastava J.; disposed 18.7.2025; 2025:AHC:118539

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no order for police protection is required. ¶8

Nasreen Jahan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life / provide police protection to the petitioners.

¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court finds no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no order for police protection is required.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, nor any evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault.

¶9

Key takeaways

A couple may be given security in a deserving case, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; courts and police authorities remain available if anyone misbehaves with or manhandles them.ratio¶11
Since the petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, the concerned police will do the needful in accordance with law if they find a real threat perception.ratio¶12
Observation (hypothetical): the petition contains no specific averment that any complaint was lodged with the police or that any case was instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS after police inaction.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (C) No. 20026 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:118539), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 18.7.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.: Petitioners sought a mandamus directing respondents (State of U.P. and others) not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception and no material showing the petitioners' life and liberty at peril, holding that security may be provided in a deserving case but cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right absent a serious threat. Noting the petitioners' pending representation before the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, the Court observed the police will act per law if a real threat is found, and observed the petition contained no averment of any complaint instituted under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of; no police protection ordered.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118539

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20026 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Nasreen Jahan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

It is also observed that no specific application in shape of

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 AS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nasreen Jahan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasreen Jahan 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

Smt. Saima and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Anjali Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shilpi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Aarti Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Malti and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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