Disposed¶16

Smt. Aanchal and Another v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025WRIC/2972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 2972 of 2025 (Smt. Aanchal v. The State of U.P.), decided 10.04.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. Petition for mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life and for police protection disposed of; no serious threat perception found on the pleadings; security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat; representation already pending before SP Bijnor; no FIR application and no averment of proceedings under Section 175(3) BNSS.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and held there was no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them. ¶9

Smt. Aanchal and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life, and whether the petitioners are entitled to an order of police protection.

¶8

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and held there was no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

There is no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril, and 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 them.

¶10

Key takeaways

In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶11
Security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; if any person misbehaves or manhandles the petitioners, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue.ratio¶12
The petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life: disposed of. On the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and no material to conclude that their life and liberty were at peril; there was not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. The Court held that in a deserving case it can provide security to a couple, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue. The petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, and if the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law. The petition contained no specific application for lodging an FIR against the private respondents and no averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53112

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2972 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Aanchal And Another Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Instructions preferred by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Chief 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, Bijnor 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 :- 10.4.2025 Rakesh

¶18

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

Smt. Aanchal and Another v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aanchal and Another v. the 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

Mohd Fuzail vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shaista Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nargis and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Anjali Kumari and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

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

Guddi and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others