Disposed
Ms Neha Seth v. State & Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(CRL)/2348/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL)…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. versus
| STATE & ORS | ..... Respondent | |
|---|---|---|
| Through: | Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv. |
|
| SI Vijay Kumar, P.S. Preet Vihar & | ||
| SI Shri Gopal, P.S. Shakur Pur | ||
| Ms. Monika Arora & Mr.Gaurav | ||
| Upadhyay, Advs. for respondents |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR O R D E R % 08.12.2015
Though no process fee was filed on behalf of the petitioner but respondent No.3, father of Neha (petitioner), is present in the Court along with his counsel.
The petitioner, Ms. Neha Sethi, has stated before this Court that she is a major and out of her own choice, she has walked out her parental home in order to pursue her vocation. She is presently employed at a Call Centre.
The father of the petitioner (respondent No.3) has stated that he shall not trouble her any further and that all he wanted to know was her well being and whether she has taken a correct decision without any pressure or coercion from any quarter.
Before this petition was heard, respondent No.3, father of the petitioner, had an occasion to interact with his daughter.
Since he saw for himself that the petitioner is safe and is not acting under the dictates of anybody, he does not have any apprehensions now. He also undertakes that he or his relatives shall not put any pressure on the petitioner to accept any matrimonial alliance which is not of her choice.
Considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner also has reconsidered and has decided not to pursue this matter.
Since there is no apprehension of threat perception, there is no need of passing any restraining order.
The petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
In case the petitioner apprehends any trouble again, it would be open to her to approach this Court.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
DECEMBER 08, 2015 ns
Neha Sethi
State & Ors
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court