Disposed¶11

Km. Poonam Devi Thru. His Father Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2025HABC/358/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus writ petition; illegal detention of minor girl; detenue Km. Poonam Devi; petitioner through father Vishambhar Dayal; respondent no.4 Sunil; opposite party nos.4 to 8; Crime No.243/2024; Section 363, 366 I.P.C.; C.W.C. custody handover order 04.07.2024; application before S.P.; no F.I.R. lodged; petitioner advised to lodge F.I.R. / lawful remedies; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 14; Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma; disposed of finally; order date 11.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was disposed of finally, with the petitioner advised to lodge an F.I.R. against respondent no.4 or otherwise pursue his remedy in accordance with law. ¶11

Km. Poonam Devi Thru. His Father Vishambhar Dayal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was disposed of finally, with the petitioner advised to lodge an F.I.R. against respondent no.4 or otherwise pursue his remedy in accordance with law.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the court should issue a habeas corpus writ commanding opposite party nos.4 to 8 to produce the detenue Km. Poonam Devi (daughter of Vishambhar Dayal), allegedly held in their illegal detention, and direct the police to produce her and hand over her custody to the petitioner.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the facts, the parties' submissions, the C.W.C.'s custody-handover order and the instructions, the court observed that although custody had been handed over to the petitioner, she was later alleged to have been taken away by respondent no.4; on that basis no production directive was issued through this habeas corpus petition.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's proper recourse is to lodge an F.I.R. against respondent no.4 and, if such F.I.R. is not lodged, to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law, rather than secure the detenue's production through this writ.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 358 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 14), disposed of finally on 11.2.2025 by Hon'ble Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma. Filed through the father (Vishambhar Dayal) seeking production of the detenue Km. Poonam Devi, alleged to be in the illegal detention of opposite party nos.4 to 8, including respondent no.4 (Sunil). Background: F.I.R. Crime No.243/2024 under Section 363, 366 I.P.C.; C.W.C. custody handover to the petitioner by order dated 04.07.2024; subsequent re-taking of the child by respondent no.4; application before the S.P. yielded no fresh F.I.R. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. Holding of THIS court: no production or custody directive issued; petitioner advised to lodge an F.I.R. against respondent no.4 and, failing that, to seek his remedy in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8592

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 358 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Km. Poonam Devi Thru. His Father Vishambhar Dayal Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been moved with prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of HABEAS CORPUS commanding and directing the opposite party nos.4 to 8 to produce the detenue namely Km. Poonam Devi, daughter of Vishambhar Dayal, who is in the illegal detention of the opposite party nos.4 to 8 before this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case daughter of the petitioner was taken away by respondent no.4- Sunil regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged as Crime No.243/2024, under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. The daughter was minor at that time as a result she was handed over in the custody of the petitioner by order dated 04.07.2024 by C.W.C. In the meantime, the child/girl was taken away by respondent no.4 again regarding which he moved an application before the S.P. concerned but no F.I.R. was lodged in the matter, therefore, request to direct the police to produce the detenue before this Court and hand over the custody.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A., the order passed by C.W.C. for handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner and the perusal of instructions, it appears that in this case custody was handed over to the petitioner but later on she is alleged to be taken away by respondent no.4. In this regard, the petitioner has an option to lodge an F.I.R. against respondent no.4 and in case his F.I.R. is not being lodged, he has remedy which he can avail in accordance with law.

¶11

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶13

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Km. Poonam Devi Thru. His Father Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Poonam Devi Thru. His Father Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rubi Devi Thru. Her Husband Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chhotkauo @ Israil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Nankoo vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Rajmani Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Mayavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another