JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - The petitioners, who have allegedly married each other, are seeking protection to their life and liberty at the hands of respondents No.4 to 6 who are opposed to their marriage. 2. According to the petitioners they have also made a representation dated 5.1.2012 to respondent-Authorities for providing protection to their life and liberty. It has been prayed that directions be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their life and liberty. 3. From the perusal of the averments made in the petition and documents placed on record, the necessary details as to in what manner the representation dated 5.1.2012 has been made to respondent No.2 is not established. This petition came up for hearing on 11.1.2012 before this Court and the following order was passed:- “On request, adjourned to 18.1.2012. In the meantime, petitioners may approach the respondent authorities for redressal of their grievance, if any.” 4. Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted before this Court that after passing of the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached the respondent-Authorities for redressal of their grievances, however, nothing has been done by the respondent- Authorities for their protection. The aforesaid submission made by the leaned counsel for the petitioners is not supported by any document or affidavit. Even before this Court, the petitioners, who are present, could not give the specific date and time when they approached respondents No.2 and 3 after 11.1.2012. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Dismissed. 7. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach respondents No.2 and 3 to seek redressal of their grievances, if any, and in case they approach the Authorities, their complaint shall be looked into. ------------