BHARTI SAGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who claim that they are major and had married on 8th February, 2007 have filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful married life by adopting coercive measures.

(2.) It has been stated in paragraph no. 13 of the petition that the parents of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bharti Sagar are creating problems in the married life of the petitioners with the help of Police Station C.B. Ganj, Bareilly, while in paragraph 14 of the writ petition it has been stated that the police of Police Station C.B. Ganj with the help of respondent no. 5 who is none other than the father of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bharti Sagar is adopting coercive measures against the petitioners and is trying to arrest them. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it has been stated that on 22nd February, 2007 one Sub-Inspector and two Constables of Police Station C.B. Ganj went to the house of petitioner No. 2 Sri Shyam Singh for arresting the petitioners but as the petitioners were not present, they left after giving a warning that petitioners should surrender before the police authorities. In paragraph 17 of the petition it has been stated that Police Constable again went to the house of petitioner no. 2. In paragraph 20 of the petition it has been stated that respondent no. 5 is adopting coercive measures against the petitioners with the help of police of Police Station C.B. Ganj, district Bareilly. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 4 namely the District Magistrate, Bareilly, Senior Superintendent of Police Bareilly and the Station Officer, Police Station C.B. Ganj district Bareilly. It has been categorically stated that the family members of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bharti Sagar has not filed any complaint or First Information Report against the petitioners and the Station Officer C.B. Ganj district Bareilly did not go to the residence of the petitioners at any time for taking any action against them. The contents of paragraph 13 of the petition have been denied and it has been stated that the police have not taken any action against the petitioners. The contents of paragraph no. 16 and 17 of the writ petition have also been denied and it has been specifically stated that the police did not go to the petitioners' house with respondent no. 5.

(3.) The averments made in the counter affidavit clearly show that the apprehension of the petitioners' that the police is taking some action against them at the behest of respondent no. 5 is not correct.