The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the father seeking directions to produce his 19-year-old daughter. The daughter stated she married voluntarily and repeated this before the Court. The Court held no further directions were required and disposed of the petition.
No further directions issued; petition disposed of.
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.
$~16
SUNDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ritesh Bahri, Mr. Vipin Bansal & Mr. Vinesh Kumar, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, standing counsel along with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Adv. and Insp. Rajesh Sharma, SI Ashish Sharma, PS Jafrabad, Delhi.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
CRL.M.A. 31453/2018 (exemption)
W.P.(CRL) 2647/2018
W.P.(CRL) 2647/2018
Page 1 of 2
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
“sandeep”
W.P.(CRL) 2647/2018
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether directions are required to produce the petitioner before the Court after he reaffirmed her voluntary marriage.
Whether the petitioner's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC requires further judicial intervention.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SUNDER SINGH
STATE & ORS.
S. MURALIDHAR
VINOD GOEL
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
