[2025:RJ-JP:47021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1519/2025 1. Shrawan Kumar Jaiman S/o Late Shri K. K. Jaiman, Aged About 72 Years, R/o House No. C-515, Siddharth Nagar, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, (Raj.). 2. Mithlesh Jaiman W/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Jaiman, Aged About 68 Years, R/o House No. C-515, Siddharth Nagar, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Director General of Police, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jaipur East. 4. S.H.O. Police Station Airport Thana, Sanganer, Jaipur. 5. Smt. Shakshi Jaiman D/o Shri Maman Chand Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No. 101/5, Shyam Vihar, Gole Pulli, Talab Tillo, Jammu. 6. Shri Maman Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Unknown, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 101/5, Shyam Vihar, Gole Pulli, Talab Tillo, Jammu. 7. Smt. Urmila Sharma W/o Shri Maman Chand Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o House No. 101/5, Shyam Vihar, Gole Pulli, Talab Tillo, Jammu. 8. Shri Hemant Sharma S/o Shri Maman Chand Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o House No. 101/5, Shyam Vihar, Gole Pulli, Talab Tillo, Jammu. 9. Shri Aashish Sharma S/o Shri Maman Chand Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 101/5, Shyam Vihar, Gole Pulli, Talab Tillo, Jammu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahendra Shandilya with Mr.Pushpendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND [2025:RJ-JP:47021] (2 of 4) [CRLW-1519/2025] Order 20/11/2025 1. Defect(s) pointed out by the Office stands waived. 2. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing grave threat to their life and personal liberty at the hands of private respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are senior citizens and the subject premises belong to the petitioners and the petitioners allowed their son and daughter-in-law to reside in the same, when they started causing nuisance, an application under Section 5 of the Senior Citizen and Welfare of Parents Act 2007 was submitted before the Court of SDO, which was allowed on 10.10.2025 and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were restrained not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in the subject house and not to abuse and harass them. Counsel submits that even a point has also been taken from them in this regard, but in spite of above, they are causing threat to life and personal liberty of the petitioners. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, the petitioners have submitted a complaint/ representation to the Nodal Officer for redressal of their grievances, but no heed has been paid, hence, under these compelling circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing this petition. 4. The 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. [2025:RJ-JP:47021] (3 of 4) [CRLW-1519/2025] 5. It appears that prior to approaching this Court, the petitioners have already submitted representations before the concerned Station House Officer and the Nodal Officer pursuant to the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.792/2024). 6. It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that the life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every Police Officer is duty bound to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens. 7. Looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted appropriate representation/application seeking protection before the Nodal Officer as well as concerned Station House Officer, it is expected from the Officers concerned to look into the matter in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Suman Meena (supra) and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, they may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. The Nodal Officer is directed to ensure compliance of the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:47021] (4 of 4) [CRLW-1519/2025] 120.10.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-II (Sanganer) and direct the respondent Nos.5 to 9 not to cause any hindrance in the living of the petitioners in the subject house. 8. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 9. 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 Aayush Sharma /197