A petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus was dismissed as an abuse of process. The Court held the filing was a tactic to ascertain the petitioner's wife's address for service in a pending guardianship suit, effectively abusing writ jurisdiction for a civil matter.
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.
$~49
SONU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DLEHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao (Standing Counsel (CRL)) with Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Aryan Sachdeva Advocates SI Sachin, Insp Harkesh Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
O R D E R % 09.07.2025 CRL.M.A. 19384/2025 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 2077/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2025 at 11:42:55
Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi for custody of the children.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
JULY 9, 2025 Prateek/SZ
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2025 at 11:42:55
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of habeas corpus filed to ascertain the wife's address for service in a pending guardianship petition constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Sonu
State NCT of Delhi
Respondent No.2
Subramonium Prasad
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
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
