IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 178 of 2010 Sonia and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. 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 commanding respondents no. 1 and 2 to provide police protection for them in order to safeguard their life and liberty. 2- Heard Sri S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondents no. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 3- As per the petition, both the petitioners are major and they got married of their own will as per Hindu rites at Arya Samaj Mandir, Muzaffarnagar. Respondent no. 3 is the father of petitioner no. 1 and is against this marriage and is seriously annoyed with the petitioners. Hence, he in connivance with respondents no. 1 and 2 is trying to implicate the petitioners in any criminal case and also trying to create hindrance in their normal life. Hence, the writ petition. 4- Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no ground for issuing any writ in the nature of mandamus is available at this stage. However, we 2 direct that if the petitioners make any representation before respondent no. 1 i.e. S.S.P., Haridwar for providing any police protection to them, respondent no. 1 i.e. S.S.P., Haridwar after assessing the entire situation at the spot, shall do needful in the case. 5- With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17-03-2010 SP