Bhanu Pratap Singh and Another vs State of Uttarakh and Others

Nirmal Yadav, J.—This is an application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 896 of 2011) in filing the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3. The reasons assigned for delay in filing the counter affidavit are just and bonafide. Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 896 of 2011) is allowed. Delay is condoned. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 is taken on record.

By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide protection of life and personal liberty to live a peaceful matrimonial life in the society.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners are major and they solemnized the marriage on 19.11.2010 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Near Maida Mill Gate, Sharda Nagar Chauk, District Saharanpur (U.P.). The copy of marriage certificate has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 who is the father of Petitioner No. 2 has become annoyed with the marriage of the Petitioners. Hence, he started extending threats to the Petitioners to kill them. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard Ms. Neetu Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Amit Bhatt, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, counsel for Respondent No. 3 and perused the material available before us.

The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 argued that his daughter Petitioner No. 2 Annu alias Anuj Kumari is a minor and a case has been registered against Petitioner No. 1 Bhanu Pratap Singh under Sections 363, 366A of Indian Penal Code vide FIR of Case Crime No. 127 of 2010 at Police Station Pathi, District Haridwar. According to him, the date of birth of Petitioner No. 2 Anuj Kumari is 15.7.1993 as per the School Certificate (Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit).

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that as per Voter I.D. Card (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), Anuj Kumari was 18 years of age at the time of the preparation of the Voter I.D. Card. Thus, she is not a minor and was major at the relevant time.

Having considered the submissions raised by learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any substance in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3. We are of the view that it is not a case in which any writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued at this stage.

However, we direct that in case Petitioners move a representation before Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar for providing adequate security from Respondent No. 3, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar after assessing the entire situation at the spot, shall do the needful in the matter.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally.