SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 12.09.2025 WPCRL No. 316 of 2025 Hon'ble G. Narendar, C.J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 4. For the reasons stated in the Application seeking condonation of delay (IA No. 3 of 2025), the delay in filing the Recall Application is condoned. 4. The Application (MCRC No. 2 of 2025) is preferred praying for recall of the order dated 21.04.2025 in view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 is already married to the daughter of respondent No. 4 and; that he is attempting to re-marry again. 5. The writ petition was canvassed on the ground that there is a threat to life and limb of the petitioners and this Court had not gone into the aspect of subsisting marriage, nor has this Court declared that the first petitioner is a bachelor. In the event petitioner No. 1 has committed any punishable offence, it is open for the applicant to make out a case before the jurisdictional SHO and if such a case is made out, the complaint would certainly be entertained. 6. The writ petition came to be disposed of by the following order:- “2. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have been given security and the respondents have also been called and suitably advised to ensure that the vitiated atmosphere stands dissipated and that the third respondent has furnished the phone numbers where the Police can be immediately reached in the event of petitioners apprehending any threat to their life and liberty.” 7. This Court has neither pronounced on the legality of the subsisting marriage, or illegality of any attempt to re- marry. 8. That being so and the Court having merely directed the concerned police to discharge their duties, we do not find any ground for review. Accordingly, the Recall Application, in our considered opinion, is highly misconceived and is, accordingly, rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) (G. Narendar, C.J.) 12.09.2025 12.09.2025 Rathour