JUDGMENT Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral) - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus by way of directions to official respondent Nos.1 to 3 to protect their life and liberty from respondent Nos.4 to 10, as they are against petitioners' live-in-relationship. 2. Learned counsel contends that petitioner No.1 Amandeep Kaur, aged 27 years and petitioner No.2 Ramandeep Kaur aged 21 years fell in love with each other and decided to live together in live-in relationship. He states that when the relationship of the petitioners came to the knowledge of family members of both the petitioners, they turned against their alliance, as they wanted to perform the marriage of both the petitioners with a boy of their own choice. As a result of that, petitioner No.1 ran away from her house and is now residing with petitioner No.2 in live in-relationship. He contends that the private respondents extended threats to the petitioners that they would implicate them in a false criminal case, therefore, a representation dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) was given to Senior 3. Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib, but till date, no action has been taken upon it, therefore, the necessary directions be issued by providing protection to the petitioners. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the averments contained in the petition lack the material particulars and do not reveal the manner and mode of alleged threat extended to the petitioners. The petitioners have expressed an apprehension that the private respondents may falsely implicate them in some criminal case and in the considered opinion of this Court, this apprehension is misplaced, as admittedly, no complaint has been made so far against them by the private respondents. Even, if it is assumed, that a complaint is given to the police by any of the private respondents against the petitioners, then it cannot be construed as threat to their life and liberty, as private respondents are also free to avail their remedy in law in case, they feel that some offence has been committed. 5. Resultantly, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. Dismissed.