IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 536 of 2010 Amit Kumar and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Singh, 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 commanding/directing respondent nos. 1 to 3 to protect/secure the life of the petitioners and their family members from respondent no. 4. 2- Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, 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 their marriage was solemnized on 29.6.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Arya Samaj Mandir, Haridwar. Respondent no. 4, who is the father of petitioner no. 2, is against this marriage and is seriously annoyed with the petitioners and he in collusion with his other relatives is extending threats to the petitioners to implicate them in any false case as well as to kill the petitioners and their family members. 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.) 08-07-2010 SP