JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. 1. Heard.Notice. Mr. Baldev Negi, Learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of Respondents-State. 2. In view of order intended to be passed herein, the issuance of notice to Respondents No. 4 to 16 herein, is dispensed with in these proceedings. 3. Petitioners [Dalmir Din and Bano Bibi], being husband and wife, have come up, before this Court seeking the following reliefs: 26 (i) “Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners.” 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner on the basis of the averments made in writ petition, states that the Petitioner No.1 [Dalmir Din] solemnized marriage, by way of a Nikah Nama on 27.1.2025 [Annexure P-1] with the Petitioner No.2 [Bano Bibi], inaccordance with Muslim rights and Customs. Based on the Nikah Nama, the petitioners got their marriage registered with Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh in terms of the Marriage Registration Certificate dated 28.01.2025 [Annexure P-2]. 5. Grievance of the petitioners [Dalmir Din and Bano Bibi] herein, is that after solemnization of their marriage, Respondent No. 4 to 16 being the mother-in-law and Noor Bano [being first wife of petitioner No.1 [Dalmir Din] and other relatives, during the absence of petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and gave effect to act of house trespass and rioting, so as to voluntary cause hurt by entering the house of Shafi Mohammad [brother of the petitioner no.1-Dalmir Din] leading to registration of F.I.R No. 0021 dated 29.1.2025 [Annexure P-3], under Section 332(3), 190, 191(2) & 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against six persons with Police Station Indora, District Kangra. Apprehending threat to their life, personal liberty and property, the petitioners [Dalmir Din and Bano Bibi] submitted representation to Respondent No 2-Superintendent of Police, Police District, Nurpur on 17.02.2025 [Annexure P-6], on which directions were given to Incharge Police Station Thakurdwara [under SHO Indora in Police District Nurpur], for necessary action but it is stated nothing has been done in the matter till day. It is in above background, that the petitioners herein [Dalmir Din and Bano Bibi], state that after marriage they intend to visit their residence at village Paral, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra but they apprehend threat to their life, personal liberty and property, at the behest of Respondents No. 4 to 16 herein directly or indirectly and through their accomplices and in these circumstances they have carved the indulgence of this Court, in instant petition, for adequate protection to them. 6. Upon listing of this case, the matter was passed over, so as to enable, Learned State Counsel to have Instructions, in the matter from concerned the Respondent(s) as to what action, has been taken over on the representation dated 17.2.2025 [Annexure P-6], submitted by petitioners and qua the directions given by Respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Nurpur to Incharge, Police Post Thakurdwara, [under SHO Indora]. 7. After pass over, the matter was again taken up again, after an interregnum of about half an hour, when, Learned State Counsel on Instructions, received from Incharge/Investigating Officer of Police Post Thakurdwara of F.I.R. No.0021/2025 [Annexure P-3], has assured the Learned State Counsel telephonically, that in case, the petitioners [Dalmir Din and Bano Bibi], approach him then, necessary action for according protection of life, personal liberty and property, as may be required, in the fact-situation of instant case, will be accorded, in accordance with law. 8. Faced with the narration of Instructions by Learned State Counsel, as conveyed to this Court, the Learned Counsel for petitioners prays that in view of the assurance given by concerned Police Officer to Learned State Counsel {as conveyed to this Court}, any appropriate directions may be issued in this case, to the State Authorities and Superintendent of Police, District Nurpur and Incharge /IO, Police Post, Thakurdwara to ensure protection of life, personal liberty and property of the petitioners herein. 9. 9. It is trite that the Right to Life and Personal Liberty is most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time: (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the right to life, personal liberty [including property] is sacrosanct and overarching fundamental right of a person which is to be safeguarded from any attempt to be threaten or encroach or invade such right in any manner whatsoever, in Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 , in the following terms. 7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognized and applied in all civilized countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens. (ii) While redefining the sacrosancy and overarching right to life, personal liberty and dignity and the right to privacy, which includes preservation of personal intimacy, sanctity of marriage procreation, any invasion of life, personal liberty and to protect any person from any attempt to encroach or violate such right has been deprecated ensuring its protection in K.S. Puttaswamy and others vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1 , in the following terms: “313. Privacy has been held to be an intrinsic element of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a constitutional value which is embodied in the fundamental freedoms embedded in Part III of the Constitution. Like the right to life and liberty, privacy is not absolute. The limitations which operate on the right to life and personal liberty would operate on the right to privacy. Any curtailment or deprivation of that right would have to take place under a regime of law. The procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable. The law which provides for the curtailment of the right must also be subject to constitutional safeguards. 325. Like other rights which form part of fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. The procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable. The law which provides for the curtailment of the right must also be subject to constitutional safeguards. 325. Like other rights which form part of fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.” 10. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and the mandate of law as detailed above and with the consent of Learned Counsel(s) for appearing parties and in the peculiar facts of this case; this Court disposes of the instant writ petition, at this stage itself, with the following directions:- (i) State Authorities, especially Respondent No 2-Superintendent of Police, Police District Nurpur {Himachal Pradesh} is directed to ensure adequate protection of life, personal liberty of petitioners [Dalmir Din and Bano Bibi] herein, in case fact-situation of instant case so necessitates on production of copy of this order forthwith; (ii) Upon consideration as in direction no (i) supra and providing of protection ; Respondent No 2- Superintendent of Police, District Nurpur {Himachal Pradesh} shall assess duration of protection and extent thereof to petitioners hereinafter, as may be necessary in fact-situation and on such terms and conditions as may be reasonable in facts of instant case here-in-after. (iii) SHO, Police Station, Indora and Incharge/Investigating Officer of Police Post Thakurdwara are also directed to ensure compliance of this order; in view of facts in the representation dated 17.02.2025 [Annexure P-6] and Instructions conveyed telephonically to Learned State Counsel hereinabove. (iv) No order as to costs. 11. (iii) SHO, Police Station, Indora and Incharge/Investigating Officer of Police Post Thakurdwara are also directed to ensure compliance of this order; in view of facts in the representation dated 17.02.2025 [Annexure P-6] and Instructions conveyed telephonically to Learned State Counsel hereinabove. (iv) No order as to costs. 11. Needless to say, that this Court, has not adverted to merits whatsoever, which are left open to be examined by State Authorities, including the Respondent No. 2 hereinabove, in accordance with law. 12. In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.