IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 448 of 2010 Smt. Alka & Anu & another … Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & 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 sought the relief for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide protection in order to save their life and liberty. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners got married as per Hindu Rites at Arya Samaj Mandir, Haridwar on 30.11.2008. The certificate of the marriage has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is also averred in the petition that respondent No. 3 - Jagpal, who is father of petitioner No. 1 – Smt. Alka @ Anu is not happy with this marriage and became annoyed on account of this marriage, hence he has started creating hurdles in the peaceful life of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Case called out twice, but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Court. Therefore, heard Sri S.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 4. We directed the learned A.G.A. to file the counter affidavit in this case and in paragraph No. 5 of the same, it has been stated that respondent No. 2 – S.H.O., Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar and the Investigating Officer 2 of the case summoned the respondent No. 3 – Jagpal (father of the petitioner No. 1) at police station to discuss the matter. The respondent No. 3 has submitted a written application before the Station Officer stating therein that although his daughter left home without his consent, but subsequently, she solemnized the marriage with petitioner No. 2 – Kuldeep Singh, hence, now he has no grievance with the petitioners. 5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any justification to issue any writ in the nature of mandamus at this stage. The petition having no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 13.07.2010 ASWAL