Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1429/2026 of HEMBALA GAUR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 24 July 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1429/2026 Hembala Gaur --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat
UKHC010128592026
2026:UHC:6312
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL/1429/2026
Hembala Gaur
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
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.
1. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat and Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Mr. N.S. Kanyal and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The petitioner no. 2 is the daughter in law of petitioner no. 1 and both of them have an apprehension of threat to their life and property from respondent no. 7, who is also the daughter- in-law of petitioner no. 1.
4. It is submitted that the respondent no. 7, the daughter-in-law of petitioner no. 1, is habitual to raise false allegations, which is evident from the fact that earlier she lodged FIR on 11.07.2023 bearing Case Crime No. 143 of 2023 against her husband and family member and allegations were found to be false and Final Report was filed and all allegations were found to be false and after this episode other family members are deadly against her. Thereafter she came to live with the petitioner no. 1 being a daughter-in-law and now repeatedly harassing both of them and giving threatening to implicate in false cases.
5. He argued that due to the conduct of respondent no. 7 there is an immediate threat to their life and liberty and they also make an attempt to install CCTV footages, which the respondent no. 7 objected and in this regard a written complaint is also made to the S.S.P. on 17.07.2026 Annexure-5 but no action has been taken so far.
6. Since there is an immediate apprehension of UKHC010128592026
2026:UHC:6312 threat to the petitioners from the respondent no. 7 and already representation is made to the S.S.P., the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the S.S.P. concerned to assess the threat perception, if any, from the respondent no. 7 to the petitioner and take appropriate steps.
7. In addition to this, the concerned S.H.O. shall call upon the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 7 and advise them to settle their family dispute amicably without taking the law in their hands and no untoward incident be happened in future make arrangement and if necessary assist the petitioners to install CCTV.
8. Subject to the observation and direction as above, the instant petition is disposed of finally.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.07.2026 PR