IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 616 of 2010 Smt. Reshma & another … Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for petitioners Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents no. 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 directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to safeguard the life and liberty of the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 got married as per Muslim Rites and Rituals on 22.06.2008. The certificate of Nikahanama has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It reveals from the annexure Nos. 2 and 3 (High School Marksheets) that the petitioners are major at the time of the marriage. The respondent No. 3 – Mohd. Furkan 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, which has made the life of the petitioners miserable. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 2 4. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any ground for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide the security to the petitioners at this stage. 5. However, we direct the respondent No. 1 – S.S.P., Haridwar to assess the situation at the spot after receiving any representation from the petitioners in this regard and thereafter shall do the needful keeping in view the prevailing circumstances. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.07.2010 ASWAL