Anjali and Another Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 29911 of 2025

¶3

Anjali And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Kripa Shankar Yadav, Neha Rani, Satya Mangal Yadav, Satyvendra Singh Yadav, Uday Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

Needless to observe that petitioners have already moved a

¶15

WRIC No. 29911 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

representation before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Prayagraj and in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶21

September 8, 2025 #Vik/-

¶22

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

Anjali and Another v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali 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