IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No.438 of 2010 Smt. Meenakshi and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Dated 10th June, 2010 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 the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide adequate security to them. The facts reveal from the petition are that both the petitioners are major but they got married without the consent of their family members on 12.04.2006. The copy of marriage certificate issued by Priest of Santan Dharam Sabha has been annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. As the Respondent No.4 who is the father of the petitioner No.1 is not happy with the marriage of the petitioners. Hence he alongwith respondent no.3 and some musclemen arrived at the house of the petitioners and he tried to convenience the petitioner no.1 to go with him but the petitioner no.1 refused his request, then he became 2 annoyed and threatened to face the dire consequences. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the material available before us. Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is not a case in which a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued at this stage. However, we direct that in case petitioners move the representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. S.S.P., Haridwar for providing the adequate security after assessing the entire situation at the spot, shall do the needful in the matter. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) JKJ 10.06.2010