IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2010 Smt. Rashmi @ Rashida & another … Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Sri Rajkumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. By way of this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the relief for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and to provide adequate security to the petitioners. 2. Heard Sri Rajkumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are major and they solemnized their marriage on 12.05.2010 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Karanpur, Dehradun. The copy of marriage certificate has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It has further averred that the petitioner No. 1 – Smt. Rashmi @ Rashida belongs to muslim religion and petitioner No. 2 – Dinesh Kumar is a physically handicapped person. The respondent No. 3 who is the father of the petitioner No. 1 became annoyed with the marriage of the petitioners and tried to threaten the petitioners for dire consequences and also threatened her daughter to kidnap and kill her also, which has made the life of the petitioners miserable. Hence, this writ petition. 2 4. Having considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that at this stage no ground to issue any writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for providing the adequate security for the life and liberty of the petitioners. 5. However, we direct the respondent No. 1 – S.S.P., Haridwar to do the needful in the matter in order to provide adequate security to the petitioners, after assessing the entire situation at the spot, as and when, the representation by the petitioners is received at his end. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 14.05.2010 ASWAL