Disposed¶9

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

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025WRIC/3819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court writ petition seeking mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life and police protection, refused for want of serious threat perception; keywords: police protection writ, marital life interference, threat perception, security as of right denied, representation before District Bareilly police, Section 175(3) BNSS, WRIT - C 3819 of 2025, disposed 28.4.2025, neutral citation 2025:AHC:67635, single judge Saurabh Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore saw no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them. ¶3

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

¶9

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

¶2

Court's answer

No specific application in the shape of information had been preferred before the concerned police authorities, and the petition contained no specific averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

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

¶3

Key takeaways

There was no material or reason for the Court 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.ratio¶4
In a deserving case the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought.ratio¶5
If any person misbehaves with or manhandles the petitioners, the courts and police authorities are available to their rescue, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - C) No. 3819 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:67635, decided 28.4.2025 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.). Petitioners (Smt Pooja and another) sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. The Court found no serious threat perception on the pleadings and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of the petitioners) were likely to cause physical or mental assault; it declined to order police protection, observing that in a deserving case security may be provided but cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat, recourse lying with courts and police authorities upon actual misbehaviour. The Court noted the petitioners' pending representation before the District Bareilly police and the absence of any specific application/information before the police or any averment of a case instituted pursuant to S.175(3) BNSS. The petition was disposed of; no protection was ordered.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67635

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3819 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana 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 police authorities, District Bareilly 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 information preferred before the concerned police authorities for

¶14

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 :- 28.4.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

Sanjana Parmar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxmi Balmiki and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bitan Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bidharam Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another

Ruchi Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others