AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 289 wordsSanjaya Kumar Mishra, CJ
1) Heard Mr. Sachin and Mr. Jayant Nainwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2) In this case, the petitioners have prayed for granting of the police protection from the opposite party No. 5, as there is some dispute between them. However, it is further clear from the record that there are civil cases pending between the parties, and mutation proceedings are pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
3) In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to pass a writ of mandamus. However, it is submitted that the petitioners have been threatened over phone, and they can produce the audio clip of the same.
4) This Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to bring all the facts to the notice of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Dehradun, within a period of three days. On such an event, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Dehradun, the opposite party No. 3, shall take appropriate instructions and feedback from the Station House Officer, P.S. Raiwala, District Dehradun, and take a decision in the matter. If actually, a threat to the life of the petitioners is found, then appropriate orders shall be passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Dehradun, for protection of the petitioners. If the information given by the petitioners reveals a prima facie case, First Information Report should be registered.
5) With the directions as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
6) Let certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, during the course of the day.