Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/15377/2026 of ANGITA DEVI Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 3 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15377 of 2026 Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Angita Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.15377 of 2026
Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Angita Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr.Amrinder Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein on account of some family dispute is receiving threats from her parents and other family members i.e. respondents No. 5 to 10, as a result thereof, she is unable to roam/move freely in the society. It is also alleged that on account of constant threats, petitioner is finding it difficult to join her job at Una. Though before filing petition at hand, petitioner had approached the police,
2 for providing protection, but since needful was not done, she is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondent-State, which is otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, fairly admits that it is duty of the administration to protect the life and dignity of its citizens and as such, action, if not already taken upon the complaint/application made by petitioner to Superintendent of Police, Una, shall be taken expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to Superintendent of Police, Una, to look into the complaint of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-1 and do the needful expeditiously, preferably within a period of three days. In case police after having conducted investigation arrives at a conclusion that there is threat to the life and dignity of the petitioner, necessary protection shall be granted to the petitioner. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
September 3, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge