2025:UHC:1393-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.729 of 2023 Smt. Rinu and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners Counsel for State : : Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG. JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection and security for the petitioners, who have been subjected to repeated harassment, threats, and intimidation by private respondents. The petitioners also seek relief against any coercive action or inaction by the police authorities in addressing their grievances. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that petitioner no. 1, Smt. Rinu, aged about 35 years, petitioner no. 2, Shri Jagveer Singh, aged about 45 years, and their minor children, petitioners no. 3 and 4, have been facing severe threats from respondent nos. 4 to 11, who are their close relatives and fellow residents of Akodha Kalan, Laksar, District Haridwar. 2025:UHC:1393-DB 3. The dispute arises from an FIR lodged on 05.11.2022 as Case Crime No. 1044 of 2022 under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 3, and one Rajneesh. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed, excluding the name of petitioner no. 2, while petitioner no. 3, being a minor, was sent to a juvenile home and later released on bail. The trial against him is still pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. 4. Since the registration of the FIR, the petitioners have been subjected to ongoing acts of intimidation, assault, and harassment by the private respondents, who have prevented them from entering their home and village. Several complaints were made to the police authorities on multiple dates, requesting protection and legal action. Despite these complaints, no effective measures have been taken by the authorities. 5. It is contended that the respondents have also been interfering with the petitioners' agricultural land and livelihood, leading to financial distress. Several incidents of physical assault, damage to property, and verbal abuse have been reported, yet no FIR has been lodged against the private respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are unable to exercise their fundamental 2025:UHC:1393-DB rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India due to the constant threats and the inaction of the police. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608], the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and encompasses all elements necessary for a dignified existence. The Court held that any act that offends human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Similarly, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1985) 3 SCC 545], the Supreme Court recognized that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. The Court held that depriving a person of their livelihood amounts to depriving them of life itself, reinforcing the broad and inclusive interpretation of the right to life and dignity. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the failure of the police authorities to take appropriate action has resulted in a grave violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have the right to live peacefully in their home without fear of harm or unlawful interference. 2025:UHC:1393-DB 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of. Court directs SHO, police station Laksar, District Haridwar to take immediate and effective steps to provide adequate protection to the petitioners and ensure that they are able to enter and reside in their home safely. Upon expiry of 6 weeks, the SHO concerned is directed to make fresh assessments of threat perception of petitioners and take such steps as are felt necessary. Respondent nos. 4 to 11 are restrained from interfering in the life and liberty of the petitioners, causing harm to them, or obstructing their peaceful residence. G. NARENDAR, C.J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:25th February, 2025 NR/