IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 497 of 2010 Smt. Bharti and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 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 directing respondents 2 to safeguard the life and liberty of the petitioners and to provide safety and security as and when required from the clutches of respondent no. 4. 2- Heard Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. 3- As per the petition, both the petitioners are major and they got their marriage registered with the Registrar of Hindu Marriage, Tehsil Laksar, Haridwar, which was solemnized on 26.2.2010 at Shiv Mandir, Laksar. Respondent no. 4, who is the father of petitioner no. 1, is against this marriage and is seriously annoyed with the petitioners and he in collusion with respondent no. 3 is extending continuous threats to them to do away with their life. Hence, the writ petition. 2 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 direct that if the petitioners make any representation before respondent no. 2 i.e. S.S.P., Haridwar for providing any police protection to them, respondent no. 2 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.) 25-06-2010 SP