JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel states that petitioner No.1 rejected the proposal of one Taj Mohd. and got married to Zulfikar Ahmad whereafter Taj Mohd. and his family members i.e. private respondents made attempts to abduct petitioner No.1 and threatened to eliminate the petitioners on petitioner No.1 not agreeing to get married to Taj Mohd. Learned counsel states that in the circumstances, the official respondents were liable to be directed to provide police protection to the petitioners in view of threats from the private respondents. 2. Learned counsel states that in view of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. having been made before the concerned Magistrate and the same having been forwarded to the concerned SHO, it was incumbent upon the police to investigate the matter and take action in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel states that the petitioners would be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to consider the threat perception to the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents and provide security to the petitioners. 4. Notice of motion to respondent No.3 only. Mr. W. S. Nargal, learned Sr. AAG accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and states that he has no objection to the limited prayer of the petitioners. 5. Statement of learned counsel for the parties is taken on record. Writ petition is taken on board and is disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to consider the threat perception to the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents and if the circumstances of the case so warrant, to provide them with protection in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to mention, no opinion has been expressed with regard to the allegations leveled in the writ petition and the same would be subject to the outcome of the assessment of threat perception to the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents. 6. With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition along with MP stands disposed of.