Writ petition disposed of seeking protection for petitioners married on 23.05.2024 facing threats. Court directed police station to provide six weeks of protection with fresh assessment thereafter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No | Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPCRL No.558 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking protection. According to them, they were in love and got married as per Hindu rites and rituals on 23.05.2024. Certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Damodar Puram, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly is enclosed with the writ petition. The date of marriage indicated in the said certificate is 23.05.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage under Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2010, however their marriage is yet to be registered under the said Act. 5. Both the petitioners appeared before us and petitioner no.2 stated that he serves as Accountant in a private company known as Jindal Industries at Rudrapur He further stated that he has studied up till B.Com. Petitioner no.1 stated that she has completed B.A. and is not employed anywhere. Document enclosed with the writ petition indicates that both the petitioners are major. 6. In view of the law laid down byHon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2006 (5) SCC 475, learned State counsel has no objection, if protection is granted to the petitioners, |
| who are facing threat from the private respondents. |
|---|
| 7. Be that as it may, since petitioners are |
| apprehending harm at the hands of private respondents, |
| therefore, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to |
| S.H.O. Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh |
| Nagar to provide protection to the petitioners for a |
| period of six weeks to ensure that no harm is caused to them. Upon expiry of six weeks’, S.H.O concerned |
| shall make fresh assessment of threat perception to the petitioners and take such measures as are felt necessary, for safety of petitioners. |
| 8. Let certified copy of this order be supplied, to |
| learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges. |
| (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.06.2024 SK |
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶6
Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2006 (5) SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Petitioners
State
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Pankaj Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
