Anjali Chauhan & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This case has been heard through video conferencing.

Petitioners are a married couple who had sought protection from this Court as their marriage was being opposed at the hands of the private

respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 who are father, brother and uncle of petitioner no.1.

This Court vide its order dated 25.09.2020 had passed the following order:-

“This case has been heard through video conferencing.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate with Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.

Petitioners before this Court are a married couple and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 21.09.2020 at Kashipur,

District Udham Singh Nagar. There is a prima facie proof of this, which they have annexed to the writ petition. According to the petitioners, though

they belong to the same faith, but are of different castes. Their marriage is being opposed by respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 who are father, brother and

uncle of petitioner no.1. They seek police protection from this Court as they have an apprehension that the private respondents may physically harm

them.

Presently this case is being heard through video conferencing, in which both petitioner nos.1 and 2 are presently connected to us. This Court also had

an opportunity to interact with them. They seem to be articulate and they both have apprised this Court that they have a threat perception at the hands

of the private respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.

In the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another

reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, as an interim measure, we direct the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar to coordinate with the subordinate officers of Police and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to

provide necessary protection to the petitioners as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.

Issue notices to respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.

Steps to be taken within a week.

Three weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit.

List this matter on 25.11.2020.

Interim relief application (CLMA No.7648 of 2020) stands disposed.â€​

Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, has given a statement before this Court, on instructions from his clients, that during

the pendency of the writ petition, better sense has prevailed between the parties and the relation between the parties are amicable and there is no

more threat perception to the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents and now they are living peacefully. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned

Counsel for the private respondents also reiterates the same thing that the relation between the petitioners and the private respondents are not hostile.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order dated 25.09.2020 is hereby vacated.