ARTIBEN TEJAJI CHAUHAN W/O JIGARSINH TEJMALSINH CHAUHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/15696/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240826692026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - POLICE
PROTECTION) NO. 15696 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ARTIBEN TEJAJI CHAUHAN W/O JIGARSINH TEJMALSINH CHAUHAN &
ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MUKUNDKUMAR A THAKKAR(9034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
SATISHKUMAR M PRAJAPATI(8728) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 02/11/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP accepts
rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 and waives service.
2. The present petition is preferred under Articles 14, 21
and 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following
reliefs, as set out in para 7 hereinbelow:-
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:41:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15696/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240826692026)
“a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
any other writ, order or direction to respondent nos.2 to 3 to
provide police protection to the petitioners from the family
members of the petitioner no.1 and other community people.
b) …..”
3. Mr. Mukundkumar Thakkar, learned advocate for the
petitioners, submitted that both the petitioners are major and
got married on 09.09.2026 against the wishes of their
respective family members. Therefore, they apprehend threat
to their lives from respondent No.4. It is submitted that the
petitioners had approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking
police protection. However, despite making a representation
dated 26.10.2026 to respondent No.3, no steps have been
taken to provide police protection to the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also drawn
attention of this Court to their marriage certificate and school
leaving certificates of the petitioners to establish that both of
them are major.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Lata
Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2007 (1) G.L.H. 41
and Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 7
SCC 192. He, therefore, submitted that the captioned petition
deserves to be allowed.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:41:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15696/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240826692026)
6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 3 submitted that the petitioners had lodged a complaint
before respondent No.3. In connection with the said
complaint, the petitioners have given a statement that they
apprehend no threat to their lives at present and, therefore,
have withdrawn their application seeking police protection.
He, therefore, submitted that the present petition has become
infructuous.
7. In rebuttal, learned advocate for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners apprehend threat to their lives
at Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha, and, therefore, they
had withdrawn the application seeking police protection at
Mehsana. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition
deserves to be allowed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for the parties and having gone through the record
of the case, it emerges that both the petitioners are major and
got married on 09.09.2026. The petitioners had lodged a
complaint before the Vadgam Police Station, Taluka Vadgam,
District Banaskantha. However, from the report sought to be
relied upon by learned APP, it transpires that the inquiry in
connection with the said complaint was carried out at
Mehsana. As pointed out by learned advocate for the
petitioners, the petitioners have stated that they do not
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:41:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/15696/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240826692026)
apprehend any threat to their lives at Mehsana; however, they
apprehend threat to their lives at Taluka Vadgam, District
Banaskantha.
9. Having gone through the contents of the petition and
considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Lata Singh (supra) and Shakti Vahini (supra), S.P. of
the Dist:Banaskantha is directed to provide the police
protection to the petitioners in accordance with law.
10. In view of the above direction, the captioned petition
stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 18:41:07 IST 2026