HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1811/2024 1. Govind Sharan Rawat S/o Late Shri Somilal Ji Rawat, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 1-8 Bhagat Niwas, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Babita Rawat W/o Govind Sharan Rawat, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 1-8 Bhagat Niwas, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range (Raj.) 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural (Raj.) 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jamwa- Ramgarh Circle, Jaipur Rural (Raj.). 5. The Station House Officer, Jamva-Ramgarh, Jaipur Rural (Raj.) 6. Pradeep Kumar Goyal, at Present Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jamwa-Ramgarh Circle, Jaipur Rural (Raj.). 7. Hardayal Meena, At Present Sub-Inspector, S.H.O. Jamwa-Ramgarh, Jaipur Rural, (Raj.) .....Responents 8. Prithviraj Gurjar S/o Raguvar Dayal, R/o Chomukha, P.s. Jamwa-Ramgarh, Dist. Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. 9. Gopal Khatik S/o Unknown, P.S. Jamwa-Ramgarh, Dist. Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. 10. Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Unknown, P.s. Jamwa- Ramgarh, Dist. Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. 11. Lokesh Gurjar S/o Unknown, P.s. Jamwa-Ramgarh, Dist. Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Private-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Sahaj Veer Baweja, Mr. Amit Kaviya and Mr. Siddhant Choudhary (2 of 4) [CRLW-1811/2024] For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Suman Singh, CI (IO) Chandavaji, P.S. Jamvaramgarh, Distt.Jaipur Rural Mr. RC Goutam, Mr. YV Nandwana for Mr. Rajesh Goawami, Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Pranav Sharma Dr. Abhinav Sharma (through VC) Mr. Satish Sharma Mr. CC Ratnu JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/01/2025 1. The petitioners have preferred this petition for issuing necessary directions to the official-respondents to provide security and protection to them and their property on the ground that they are facing grave threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, provides for right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of fundamental rights and any threat to the same amounts to violation of the same. Counsel submits that the petitioners are the rightful owner of the property in question and the respondents are bent upon to dispossess them by hook or by crook, therefore, appropriate orders be passed protecting the property of the petitioners as well. Counsel further submits that the petitioners approached the authorities for lodging of FIR against the action of the respondents, but no heed was paid, (3 of 4) [CRLW-1811/2024] hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsels appearing for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners. 4. The Public Prosecutor submits that FIR No.207/2024 has already been registered with Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 189(2), 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 246, 318(4), 126(2), 351(2), 338, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 355, 61(2)(A) of BNS, and the JCBs and tractors have also been seized. He further submits that the Police is investigating the matter. 5. Learned counsels for the private respondents submit that serious dispute with regard to right title over the property in question is involved, for which civil suits have been filed by the parties before the competent Court of law, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. It is the settled legal proposition of law as expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522 and Indra Sarma vs. VKV Sarma reported in 2013 (15) SCC 755 that life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to the procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per (4 of 4) [CRLW-1811/2024] Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of citizens. 8. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted representations seeking protection before the Police Officers, it is expected from the Police Officers concerned to look into the matter and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass appropriate orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners so that life of the petitioners may not be put under threat. 9. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated by or against the parties to the litigation. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/411