Nem Chand & 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 no.3 who is father of petitioner no.2.

This Court vide its order dated 15.10.2020 had passed the following order:-

“This case has been heard through video conferencing.

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent

nos. 1 & 2.

Petitioners before this Court are a married couple and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu ceremony on 19.09.2020. There is a prima facie

proof of this, which they have annexed to the writ petition. According to the petitioners, they belong to the same faith. Their marriage is being opposed

by respondent no.3 who is father of petitioner no.2. They seek police protection from this Court as they have an apprehension that the private

respondent 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 appear to be major and they both have apprised this Court that they have a threat perception at the hands

of the private respondent no.3.

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, Udham Singh Nagar 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 no.3.

Issue notice to respondent no.3. Steps to be taken within a week.

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

List this matter on 26.11.2020.

Interim relief application (CLMA No.8657 of 2020) stands disposed.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied today itself on payment of usual charges.â€​

Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajendra Singh Negi, 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. 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 15.10.2020 is hereby vacated.