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

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025WRIC/6952/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ dismissed/disposed; mandamus for non-interference in peaceful marital life; no serious threat perception; life and liberty not at peril; security not claimable as of right without serious threat; representation before SP/SSP Etah; no FIR complaint; Section 175(3) BNSS not invoked; Allahabad High Court; single judge Saurabh Srivastava; decided 15.5.2025; 2025:AHC:81809.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the pleadings, the Court found no serious threat perception to the petitioners and therefore no requirement to pass any order providing police protection. ¶¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful marital life / to police protection.

¶¶7

Court's answer

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

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

There was no material or reason 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.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

While a deserving couple may be provided security, security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without any serious threat; Courts and police authorities remain available if any person misbehaves or manhandles them.ratio¶¶11
Since the petitioners had already moved a representation before the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah, if the concerned police find a real threat perception they will do the needful in accordance with law.ratio¶¶12
No specific application/complaint for lodging an FIR against the private respondents was shown, and there was no averment that any case had been instituted in pursuance to Section 175(3) of BNSS; accordingly no case was made out warranting the Court's indulgence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - C No. 6952 of 2025), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order dated 15.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:81809) — A couple sought a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with their peaceful marital life, i.e., police protection. Dismissing the prayer, the Court held that on perusal of the pleadings there was no serious threat perception, no material indicating peril to life and liberty, and no iota of evidence that the private respondents (relatives) were likely to cause physical or mental assault. A deserving couple may be given security, but security cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right without serious threat. The Court noted the representation already pending before the SP/SSP, Etah, observing that if the police find a real threat perception they will act in accordance with law, and further noted the absence of any complaint for FIR or any proceeding under Section 175(3) BNSS. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81809

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6952 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Renu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Prakash,Narayan Swaroop Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Even in the revised call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners, however, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents is present.

¶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/Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah 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 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Akanksha Minor and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shankar Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others

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

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

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