Dismissed

Darshan Singh v. S.S.P. Patiala & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2011CRWP/1046/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a habeas corpus petition seeking release of the petitioner's adult daughter who was allegedly kidnapped. The court dismissed the writ as inconclusive for lack of merit because the victim, appearing in court voluntarily before her husband, denied illegal custody.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not having merits because the detained person is a major who voluntarily appeared in court stating she is living with her lawful husband.

Darshan Singh Vs S.S.P. Patiala & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 24.01.2011

Darshan Singh

........ Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

........ Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH

¶12

¶13

PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. P.S. Gerwal, AAG, Punjab, for respondent-State. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 7.

¶15

¶16

JORA SINGH, J.

¶17

Darshan Singh, preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the release of his daughter namely Inderjit Kaur from the unlawful detention/illegal custody of the respondents.

¶18

That on 23.3.2010, respondents No.3 to 6 had kidnapped the daughter of the petitioner namely Inderjit Kaur. Vikram Singh-

¶19

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶20

respondent No.3, is the son of Ex. MLA and is a married person having two children. When Inderjit Kaur, was not traceable then DDR No.17 dated 25.3.2010, (Annexure P-1) was got registered. A representation dated 2.4.2010 (Annexure P-2) was also given to respondent No.1 but no action till today.

¶21

That the private respondents filed false petition CRM No. M 9232 of 2010, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. through Inderjit Kaur, for seeking protection of her life and liberty against the petitioner and his other family members. Writ petition was dismissed in view of the statement of Inderjit Kaur. Affidavit on behalf of Inderjit Kaur, was also filed by respondent No.7. Official respondents are under the influence of private respondents. Petitioner has an apprehension that respondents may eliminate Injderjit Kaur. Custody of Inderjit Kaur, is illegal with the respondents.

¶22

Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply in the shape of affidavit of Devinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patran and the same is to the effect that the present petition is not maintainable in view of CRM No. M 9232 of 2010, filed by Inderjit Kaur, seeking protection of her life and liberty against the present petitioner. Present petitioner has specifically stated that his daughter is free to marry anybody as per her own will and there is no threat to her life and liberty. Present petitioner remained silent during the hearing of CRM No. M 9232 of 2010. As per DDR No. 17 dated 25.3.2010, got recorded by the present petitioner age of his

¶23

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶24

daughter is 18 years. No complaint by Inderjit Kaur with the police regarding kidnapping. In Court, the alleged detenue appeared and stated that her parents are interested in marrying her with an old person of 50 years but she has no interest in that marriage and wants to study in abroad. Since the age of the daughter of the petitioner is more than 18 years so no action was taken by the police in view of DDR No.17 dated 23.5.2010. Representation was sent by the petitioner but petitioner made a statement that he does not want any action to be taken on the complaint as the matter is already under consideration of the Court.

¶25

Respondent No.4 filed separate reply and contested the petition inter alia on the ground that Inderjit Kaur filed CRM No. M 9232 of 2010 and allegation of Inderjit Kaur was that her date of birth is 31.12.1991. She had applied for Visa for England for study purposes but her parents wanted to marry her with a man of 50 years old of village Lehra and when she refused, then her parents started threatening her. Ultimately, CRM No. M 9232 of 2010, was disposed of in view of the statement of parents of Inderjit Kaur.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the private respondents and have carefully gone through the file.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Inderjit Kaur is the daughter of the petitioner. She was kidnapped by respondents No. 3 to 6 on 23.3.2010. Respondent No.3 is the son of Ex. MLA and is very influential person of the area. He is already married and having two

¶28

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M) -4-

¶29

children. DDR No. 17 dated 25.3.2010, was got registered but no action till today. Inderjit Kaur is in the illegal custody of respondents No. 3 to 6.

¶30

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for private respondents argued that Inderjit Kaur, is not in the illegal custody of private respondents. In fact Inderjit Kaur had filed CRM No. M 9232 of 2010, against her parents and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21.4.2010. One criminal case bearing No.325 of 2010, registered under Sections 363/366/342/323/504/508/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sarsawa, District Saharanpur, was got registered against Ishwar Dayal and others. In FIR No. 325 bail application was moved. Inderjit Kaur appeared alongwith her counsel and her allegation was that she is major and is living with Ishwar Dayal Sharma on her own accord. Inderjit Kaur, also appeared before this Court on 23.6.2010 but no allegation of Inderjit Kaur that she is in the illegal custody of private respondents. Injerjit Kaur appeared twice once before this High Court and once before the Allahabad High Court. When custody of the alleged detenue is not illegal then the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Admittedly, Inderjit Kaur, is the daughter of Darshan Singhpetitioner. She filed CRM No. M 9232 of 2010. Darshan Singh, was present in Court and stated that his daughter is free to marry anybody as per her own will and there is no threat to her life and liberty. Ultimately in view of the statement of Darshan Singh and reply by the State, CRM No. M 9232 of 2010, was dismissed having become infructuous.

¶32

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M) -5-

¶33

Annexure P-3 is the copy of the order dated 21.4.2010. Inderjit Kaur, sent application through post that her father filed a petition but she is a major. Her date of birth is 31.12.1991. She got registered Court marriage dated 29.3.2010, against the wishes of her parents. Earlier she filed CRM No. M 9232 of 2010 and in that petition her father submitted an affidavit that they are not against her marriage. In fact her father wants to kill her because she has married with a Scheduled Caste boy. She is residing peacefully with her husband.

¶34

On 05.1.2011, Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 and filed copy of the order dated 20.10.2010, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. On the next date learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to verify the genuineness of the order dated 20.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that copy of the order dated 20.10.2010, produced on the last date of hearing is not genuine one. Order shows that in FIR No. 325 of 2010, bail application was moved by Ishwar Dayal and others. In the bail application Inderjit Kaur, had appeared alongwith her counsel and submitted that she is major and was living happily with her husband i.e. Ishwar Dayal on her own accord. Till the next date arrest of the petitioners namely Ishwar Dayal, Som Nath and Vikram Jeet was stayed.

¶35

On 23.6.2010, Inderjit Kaur was present in Court with her counsel but did not state a word that she is in the illegal custody of the respondents. Once before this Court on 23.6.2010 and once before

¶36

CRWP No.1046 of 2010 (O&M) -6-

¶37

Ho'ble High Court of Allahabad on 20.10.2010, Inderjit Kaur appeared and stated that she is major and is the legally wedded wife of Ishwar Dayal. If Inderjit Kaur was in illegal custody of any of the respondent then while appearing in Court she could easily state that her life and liberty is in danger and is in illegal custody of any of the respondent. In CRM No. M 9232 of 2010, filed by Inderjit Kaur, present petitioner had appeared and stated that his daughter is free to marry anybody as per her own will and there is no threat to her life and liberty.

¶38

In view of all discussed above, particularly when Inderjit Kaur had filed CRM No. M 9232 of 2010 and in view the order dated 20.10.2010, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, no further action is required.

¶39

For the reasons recorded above, writ petition without merits

¶40

is dismissed.

¶41

January 24, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE

Darshan Singh v. S.S.P. Patiala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Singh v. S.S.P. Patiala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karamjit Kaur Vs the State of Punjab

Raju Alias Raj Pal Vs the State of Haryana

Uttam Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

(O&M) Tarsem Vs Raj Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Pb State and Others