Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners, Saurabh Srivastava, J. found that there was no serious threat perception to the petitioners, and accordingly held that there was no necessity to pass any order for providing police protection to them. In light of the above, the Court found no ground to warrant its indulgence in respect of the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Upon perusal of the pleadings on record, the Court found that there was no serious threat perception to the petitioners. Therefore, it held that there was no requirement to pass any order for providing police protection to them. The Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 , wherein it was held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths who have merely fled to marry according to their own wishes.
The Court said that there was no material or circumstance on record to warrant the conclusion that the life and liberty of the petitioners were under any imminent threat. There was not even an iota of evidence to suggest that the private respondents, who are relatives of either of the petitioners, were likely to cause any physical or mental harm to them. The Court further noted that while in a deserving case, protection can be granted to a couple, the kind of support sought in the present matter was beyond the scope of judicial intervention. It emphasized that the petitioners, having chosen their path, must now learn to support each other and face the challenges posed by society together.
The Court further said that if any person misbehaved with or manhandled the petitioners, the Courts and the police authorities were available to come to their aid; however, they could not claim security as a matter of course or as a right.
It was further noted that the petitioners had already submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, and it was expected that in the event any real threat perception was found upon inquiry, the police authority concerned would take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.
The Court further observed that no specific application, in the form of any information or complaint, had been preferred before the police authorities concerned for lodging an FIR in respect of any alleged illegal conduct on the part of the private respondents, if at all such conduct had occurred. Moreover, there was no averment in the petition to suggest that any case had been instituted under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In view of the above, the Court found no ground to warrant its indulgence with respect to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
[Shreya Kesarwani v State of U.P, 2025 SCC OnLine All 2123, decided on 04-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner :- Basdeo Nishad,Rama Pati Nishad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
hwo mini SCC Candidate