WPCRL/457/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 965 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL


  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                                 AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.457 OF 2021

                       17th March, 2021


Between:

Smt. Leelawati W/o Late Ayodhya Prasad,

R/o Village Sujiya, P.O. & Tehsil Khatima,

District Udham Singh Nagar.                                 ....Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand & others                         ......Respondents



Counsel for the appellant          :      Mr.         B.M.          Pingal,
                                          learned      counsel           for
                                          the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent         :      Mr. J.S. Virk, learned
                                          Deputy Advocate General
                                          for the State.


The Court made the following :


JUDGMENT :    (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
                                  2




           The petitioner, Smt. Leelawati, has approached

this Court inter alia on the ground that she lost her husband

on 08.06.2017. Subsequently, she suffered a paralytic

attack on the left side of her body. Despite the fact that she

has nine daughters, all of them are married, and well

settled, she continues to live on her own.


2.         According to her, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are

constantly threatening her, and are trying to usurp her

property. They are also compelling her to gift her movable

property    to    them.    Since,    she   was    assaulted    on

14/15.10.2020, she lodged an F.I.R. against the respondent

Nos. 4 to 7. But so far, no action has been taken by the

police. Therefore, her prayer is that she should be protected

from respondent Nos. 4 to 7.


3.         The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

after the filing of the writ petition, the police has charge-

sheeted the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.              However, they

continue   to    roam   free;   they continue    to   harass   the

petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that this

Court should direct both the respondent No.2, the Senior

Superintendent of Police ('S.S.P.', for short) Udham Singh

Nagar, and respondent No.3, the Station House Officer,

Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar to
                                  3




immediately provide police protection to the petitioner, who

is living in dire state.


4.           On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned

Deputy Advocate General informs this Court that the

respondent No.3, the Station House Officer, Police Station

Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar is already providing

police protection to the petitioner. However, this statement

has been challenged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.


5.           Therefore, this Court directs the respondent No.2,

the S.S.P., Udham Singh Nagar, and respondent No.3, the

Station House Officer, Police Station Khatima, District

Udham Singh Nagar to immediately provide police protection

to the petitioner. The police protection should be provided

not only to protect the life of the petitioner, but also to

protect her movable and immovable properties from the

respondent Nos. 4 to 7, and/or their henchmen, or their

relatives.


6.           Issue notices to private respondents.


7.           The learned counsel for the State seeks four

weeks' time to file counter affidavit.


8.           The time, as prayed for, is granted.
                                 4




9.          List this case after four weeks.




                       ____________________________
                       RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.




                           _______________________
                                    ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 17th March, 2021 Mamta