ORDER : 1. Considering the identical issue of facts and interwoven prayers, on the directions of the Court, a bunch of matters was listed today. The instant petitions is/are either filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 528 of B.N.S.S. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection from the State authorities (police authorities), qua the married couples/live-in relationship couples/senior citizens/individuals, who are/had facing/faced threats of extra-legal harassment and/or violence at the hands of their family members/ relatives/social actors or groups. 2. In this regard, learned counsel for the State has relied upon the ‘paragraph no. 30’ of the judgment dated 02.08.2024 in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 titled as Suman Meena and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and has submitted that in the said order categorical directions are spelled out, qua the filing of representation before the three tier authorities i.e. foremost before the police officer who shall be designated as the ‘Nodal Officer’ thereafter, if aggrieved/unsatisfied then before the concerned Superintendent of Police and if still the lis in question is not settled, then before the appropriate level of the ‘Police Complaints authority’ and the SOP iŒ 6¼40½ iqŒvŒ@eŒvŒ@Áseh ;qŒ@ikVZ 2@23@7831&7910 dated 05.09.2024. For the sake of convenience, the crux of the relevant extract from the judgment dated 02.08.2024 is reproduced herein below, howsoever, it is advisable that the directions enumerated in paragraph nos. 30.1 to 30.8 (at length) be read/considered cautiously: “30.7. The following flowchart represents the mechanism delineated under paragraphs 30.1 to 30.6 of this judgment: Step 1: The applicants apprehends extra-legal threats to their lives and liberty on the part of other social actors/groups. Step 2: The applicants may file a representation before a designated Nodal Officer, who may or may not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. In case the Nodal Officer before whom the representation is filed does not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter, the respective Nodal Officer shall undertake the steps specified in paragraph 30.2 of this judgment. Step 3: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall implement measures to ensure interim protection for the applicants, if required, on an immediate basis. Step 3: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall implement measures to ensure interim protection for the applicants, if required, on an immediate basis. Step 4: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall consider the representation, afford an opportunity of appearance and hearing to the applicants in-person or through an advocate, and decide on the representation in accordance with law within the upper limit of 7 days of the date of receiving the representation. Step 5: If aggrieved of the decisions/inaction of the respective Nodal Officers as specified in steps 2 to 4, the applicants may file a representation before the respective Superintendent of Police. Step 6: The respective Superintendent of Police shall consider and decide on the representation in accordance with law within the upper limit of 3 days of the date of receiving the representation. Step 7: If aggrieved of the decision/inaction of the respective Superintendent of Police, the applicants may file a complaint before the appropriate level of the ‘Police Complaints Authority’. Step 8: Where (and only where) the applicants is/are aggrieved of the decision of the respective Police Complaints Authority, or the proceedings before the respective Police Complaints Authority are not concluded within a reasonable period of time, the applicants may invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for compelling reasons and in accordance with law.” 3. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners approach the Court, seeking protection and to ensure that their constitutional and fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are safeguarded. Considering the crucial issue, pertaining to life and liberty of an individual, this Court after an assiduous analysis, considering the contentions made by the Bar, at large, and a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court over the years, had passed a judgment dated 02.08.2024 in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 titled as Suman Meena and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. 4. Upon considering the arguments averred by the learned counsel representing the parties, considering judgments cited at the Bar, with consensus drawn among the counsel representing various matters and the prayers made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the present order is passed on mutatis mutandis basis. State of Rajasthan and Others. 4. Upon considering the arguments averred by the learned counsel representing the parties, considering judgments cited at the Bar, with consensus drawn among the counsel representing various matters and the prayers made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the present order is passed on mutatis mutandis basis. The present order is to be considered as a part and parcel in toto with Suman Meena (Supra) and SOP dated 05.09.2024. 5. Vide the judgment dated 02.08.2024 in Suman Meena (Supra), this Court had issued directions specifying the mechanism/remedies which may be invoked by the persons seeking grant of protection, or implementation of measures to ensure their safety as enshrined under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it can be deduced that with efflux of time, the instant matters is/are rendered infructuous, as upon pronouncement of Suman Meena (Supra) the lis in question in the instant matters is no longer res integra and is/are squarely covered by the directions of this Court in the judgment of Suman Meena (Supra). 6. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to avail the alternative efficacious remedy available, if the lis in question as on date survives, strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court, encapsulated in the judgment dated 02.08.2024 and the SOP dated 05.09.2024. 7. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioners are directed to comply with afore-cited judgment and avail the alternative efficacious remedy. Howsoever, considering the facts and circumstances in toto, it is directed that the interim order granted in the instant petitions, if any, shall continue/be operative, for a period of fortnight, from the date of passing of this order. 8. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment pronounced in Suman Meena (Supra) and SOP, the instant petitions is/are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.