Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 447 (UTT)

Tabassum v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-06

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This case has been heard through video conferencing. 2. Petitioners are a married couple who had sought protection from this Court as their marriage was being opposed at the hands of the private respondent nos.3 and 4 who are father and mother of petitioner no.1. 3. This Court vide its order dated 04.09.2020 had passed the following order:- "This case has been heard through video conferencing. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Petitioners are before this Court. They are adult and there is a prima facie proof of this, which they have annexed to the writ petition. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the case of the petitioners is that they love each other and want this relationship to be solemnized into a marriage, but before it is done, they are facing opposition at the hands of private respondent nos.3 and 4 who are father and mother of petitioner no.1. Hence, they seek police protection from this Court as they have an apprehension that the private respondents may physically harm them. Presently this case is being heard through video conferencing, in which both petitioner nos.1 and 2 are presently connected to us. This Court also had an opportunity to interact with them. They seem to be articulate and they both have apprised this Court that they have a threat perception at the hands of the private respondent nos.3 and 4. In the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U. P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 and S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and another, (2010) 5 SCC 600 , as an interim measure, we direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar to coordinate with the subordinate officers of Police and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to provide necessary protection to the petitioners as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos.3 and 4. Issue notices to respondent nos.3 and 4. Steps to be taken within a week. Three weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. List this matter on 29.10.2020. Interim relief application (CLMA No.6917 of 2020) stands disposed." 4. Issue notices to respondent nos.3 and 4. Steps to be taken within a week. Three weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. List this matter on 29.10.2020. Interim relief application (CLMA No.6917 of 2020) stands disposed." 4. Now the petitioners have appeared in person before this Court and we had a chance to interact with them through video conferencing. Their Lawyer Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani is also present before this Court through video conferencing. 5. Both the petitioners as well as their Counsel have given a categorical statement before this Court that better sense has prevailed between the parties, after the aforesaid interim order, and during the pendency of the present writ petition, inasmuch as their threat perception no more survives. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. 6. In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Interim order dated 04.09.2020 is hereby vacated.