The court's decision was influenced by the current lack of threat perception for the petitioners, as evidenced by the statements in the status report.

Headnote:
Threat Perception - Protection of Lives and Liberty - The court dismissed the petition seeking protection for the petitioners' lives and liberty as they did not have any current threat perception. The court allowed the petitioners to approach the court again if they have any apprehension of threat in the future.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought protection for their lives and liberty due to apprehended threat from a private respondent. However, the status report indicated that the petitioners and the respondent did not have any current apprehension of threat.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition as it found that the petitioners did not have any threat perception at the time. The court allowed the petitioners to approach the court again if they have any apprehension of threat in the future.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had a current threat perception to their lives and liberty, warranting protection from the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of current threat perception for the petitioners, as indicated by the statements of the involved parties in the status report.
Final Decision: The petition seeking protection for the petitioners' lives and liberty was dismissed. The court allowed the petitioners to approach the court again if they have any apprehension of threat in the future.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioners seek issuance of directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to protect their lives and liberty as they apprehend threat to the same at the hands of private respondent No.4.

2. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

3. Status report by way of affidavit of Shri Virender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad has been filed by learned State counsel, which is taken on record, wherein statements of petitioner No.1-Manju Rani and petitioner No.2-Ajay Kumar have been incorporated, which are to the effect that they do not have any apprehension as regards their lives and liberty and do not need any protection as of now. Statement of respondent No.4-Laddu and that of father of respondent No.4 namely Madan Lal have also been incorporated, who have also stated to the effect that they have no objection as regards Manju residing with anybody else.

4. In view of the aforestated position, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners do not have any threat perception as of now. The petition, as such, is dismissed.

5. However, in case the petitioners nurse any apprehension of threat to their lives and liberty at a later stage, it shall be open to them to approach this Court again.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document