The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus as an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner had previously filed an application under Sections 97 and 98 of the Cr.P.C. which was dismissed for lack of material evidence to prove wrongful confinement.
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.
WPCRL No.92 of 2016
15.12.2016
Heard Mr. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
This Writ of Habeas Corpus application has been filed by the petitioner-Chandra Kanta
Sahoo claiming that he was married to one Krishna Mundhra and alleging that opposite party no.
4, father of Krishna had unlawfully kept his wife in illegal custody.
It appears from the records of this case is that the petitioner had filed an earlier a
pplication under Sections 97 & 98 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkan
al, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.35 of 2016 and the said application came to
be dismissed on 18.6.2016 with the following observation:
First of all, not a single scrap of paper has been filed by the petitioner to fortify
his claim that the daughter of the Opp. Party is illegally married wife of the petitioner. Eve
n no material has been adduced before the court on the basis of which the court can form a rea
son to believe that Opp. Party has wrongfully confined his daughter.
We find that admittedly, no challenge to the said order has been made and filing the p
resent Writ of Habeas Corpus application in our considered view amounts to abuse of the proces
s of the Court.
Hence, the WPCRL stands dismissed.
....
(I. Mahanty, J.)
....
(Biswajit Mohanty, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus constitutes an abuse of process after a Section 97/98 Cr.P.C. application was dismissed for want of material evidence.
Whether the petitioner challenged the prior dismissal order before approaching the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandra Kanta Sahoo
Krishna Mundhra
Krushna's Father
I. Mahanty
Biswajit Mohanty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court