2026:UHC:3713 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 858 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Suraiya Naaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A for the State. 3. Mr. Kundan Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 4. The petitioner herein namely Rajendra Kumar Singhal who is a senior citizen and 70 years old preferred this petition seeking adequate protection to his life and liberty from the respondent no.4 the daughter and respondent no.5 who is completely stranger. When this matter came up before this Court, on the previous date this Court really very shocked that the petitioner is praying for adequate protection from his own daughter, therefore, the respondent no.4 and 5 were called and both are present and respondent no. 4 submits that the petitioner is her father and he has dispute with his mother as well as other family members and he is not giving their share over the property and in fact their dispute is arising out of certain properties which are admittedly owned by the petitioner. 4. The respondent no.4 has completed her M.B.A from Graphic Era Institute in the year 2017 and the respondent no.5 is also completed his M.B.A from Delhi University and now doing business in Haldwani giving online coaching for different courses and the respondent no.4 is associate with his business. In addition to this, the respondent no.5 who is present in Court submits that he is also associated with a regional political party i.e. Uttarakhand Kranti Dal, therefore, he has no concern either with the petitioner or with the respondent no.4. 2026:UHC:3713 5. This petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 seeking protection to his life and liberty and in such an eventuality this Court is not dealing with the issue with regard to the dispute relating to the property and either of party can avail appropriate civil remedy in this regard. Since there is a threat to the petitioner, he also made a complaint to the S.S.P. which is annexed as Annexure -3. 6. In such view of the matter, let the S.S.P may assess the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner from the respondent no. 4 and 5 and if he comes to the conclusion that there is any threat to the petitioner he shall take appropriate steps. In addition to this police official namely Renu Singh who is present in Court is also giving task to interact with the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 and the wife and other family members and advice them to settle their family dispute amicably. 7. Since respondent no.4 and 5 are present in Court they are directed to raise their dispute before any competent court of law but not make any attempt to give any threatening to the petitioner and in future if they will give any such threatening the concerned S.H.O. shall immediately take appropriate action. 8. Subject to the observations and direction as above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.05.2026 Nahid 2026:UHC:3713