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

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025WRIC/5716/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection refused; peaceful marital life; writ of mandamus; no serious threat perception; security cannot be claimed as of right; representation before Superintendent of Police, Banda; Section 175(3) BNSS observation; Smt. Sheelu v. State of U.P.; WRIT - C No. 5716 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; decided 29.4.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:69453; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, no serious threat perception to the petitioners is disclosed; consequently there is no requirement to pass any order providing police protection to them. ¶¶9

Smt. Sheelu 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 petitioners are entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful marital life (and, in effect, to police protection).

¶¶8

Court's answer

On perusal of the pleadings, no serious threat perception to the petitioners is disclosed; consequently there is 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; there is not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives of either petitioner) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to them.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

A deserving couple may be provided security, but the Court cannot lend the support sought; if any person misbehaves with or manhandles them, Courts and police authorities are available, yet security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat.ratio¶¶12
The petitioners have already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Banda; in case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio¶¶13
Observation that there is no specific averment in the petition that any case has been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS concerning alleged failure of police to register an FIR against the private respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of a writ petition (WRIT - C No. 5716 of 2025) filed by Smt. Sheelu and another seeking a mandamus directing the respondents (State of U.P. and three others) not to interfere with their peaceful marital life. Held: on perusal of the pleadings there is no serious threat perception to the petitioners, so no order for police protection is required; there is no material to conclude their life and liberty are at peril, and not even an iota of evidence that the private respondents (their relatives) would cause physical or mental assault; while a deserving couple may be given security, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without a serious threat, and Courts/police are available if anyone misbehaves with them; the petitioners' representation is already pending before the Superintendent of Police, Banda, who will act in accordance with law upon finding a real threat perception; the Court also observed there was no specific averment of any proceeding under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Petition disposed of (order dated 29.4.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69453

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5716 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sheelu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Garg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned 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, Banda 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 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 :- 29.4.2025 Shaswat

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheelu 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

Chandani and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt. Riya Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nidhi Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Neha Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Seema and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others