AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nisha M. Thakore, J
Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshit H. Raval for the petitioners and Mr. Utkarsh Shama, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.
By this petition, the petitioners seek to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court whereby praying for police protection apprehending the assault from the respondent No. 7. It is submitted that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 has solemnized on 15. 04.2024 and registered on 16.04.2024 against the wish of the parents of the girl. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have started residing together with the family of petitioner No.2 as husband and wife. However, the family members of the petitioners No.1 are erotic and they have strong objection to the aforesaid relationship of the petitioners. The petitioner has apprehended that the respondents are supported by local politician. The reference was made to the incident dated 01.05.2024 whereby it is alleged that the petitioner No.6 was assaulted. The MLC certificate, petitioner No.6 has been placed on record at page-32. The reliance was placed on representation dated 29.04.2024 addressed by the petitioner No.1. It was further submitted that inspite of the aforesaid representation being made, the respondents state authorities have failed to take necessary steps inasmuch as no decision has been taken on such representation. Hence this petition.
This Court by order dated 30.05.2024 had directed to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take instructions with regard to representation dated 29. 04.2024.
Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report dated 15.05.2024 of Krishnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City. From the said report, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the preliminary inquiry was undertaken with regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioners in their representation dated 29.04.2024. Upon such preliminary inquiry the concerned Investigation Officer Mr. D.R. Pawar, PSI, Krishnanagar Police Station has formed opinion that the case of the petitioner for extension of the police protection can be considered. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under instructions of the officer present in the Court has further submitted that the appropriate decision would be taken on the representation dated 29.04.2024 addressed to the respondent No.3 within stipulated period as may be directed by this Court and has urged this Court to pass appropriate orders.
Having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the petition and the report dated 15.05.2024 placed on record by the Police Sub Inspector, Krishnanagar Police Station, the respondent No.3 Police Commissioner is hereby directed to take appropriate decision on the application dated 29.04.2024 after taking into consideration report dated 15.05.2024 submitted before this Court by the Police Sub Inspector, Krishnanagar Police Station.
Let such decision be taken extending police protection preferably within a period of 4 days from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to clarify that the respondents authorities are directed to abide by the observations laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India reported in (2018) 7 SCC 192.
With the above observations, present petition stands disposed of.