This two-judge bench dismissed the D.B. Habeas Corpus petition filed by a petitioner, holding that the submissions did not make out a case for entertaining the matter. The court observed that the petitioner had not lodged an FIR and should have availed regular remedies under Section 97 Cr.P.C. instead of approaching the High Court at this stage.
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.
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 1278/2014 Pawan Khatri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
1
13
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 1278/2014 Pawan Khatri
vs
State of Rajasthan & Ors
DATE OF ORDER : 19th February 2014
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. Shyam S Khatri for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Vyas, Government Counsel.
<><><>
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to entertain this matter as the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
The sum and substance of the matter is that the petitioner seeks to assert that he had contacted marriage with the daughter of the respondent no. 5 after she allegedly changed her religion and accepted the religion of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the daughter of respondent no. 5 had contacted marriage at their free will but the respondent no. 5 and the other private respondents had been harassing the petitioner and his wife wherefor a writ petition bearing No. 14666/2013 was filed before this Court; and in the order dated 19.12.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed giving of police protection.
However, a perusal of the order dated 19.12.2013 makes out that the learned Single Judge, in fact, took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs State of U.P : 2006 Cr.L.J.
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 1278/2014 Pawan Khatri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
2
3312 and also took note of the submissions that the petitioner had already made representations to the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range and the Circle Officer, Khajuwala for necessary protection. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with the observations that the police authorities were under obligation to take appropriate action and there was no reason to believe that the grievances of the petitioners would not be looked into by the authorities concerned seriously.
It is sought to be suggested that the respondent No. 5 later on approached the petitioner and his wife; and took the wife of the petitioner with them but while doing so, an agreement was executed on 18.01.2014 (Annexure-4) and thereafter, the wife of the petitioner went alongwith respondent Nos. 5 to 10. It is submitted that after a lapse of few days, the petitioner went to bring his wife back from the house of the respondent No. 5 but the house was found locked and the neighbours were also unable to state the whereabouts of the family including the wife of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner having failed to trace out his wife made a representation to the Police Station Kotgate, Bikaner but no steps have been taken by the concerned authorities and hence, it is prayed that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued.
During the course of submissions, we had posed the questions about the availability of regular remedies to which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seriously concerned with the welfare of his wife and has approached the Court seeking an efficacious and speedy remedy.
We are afraid, the submissions as sought to be suggested do
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 1278/2014 Pawan Khatri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
3
not make out a case for entertaining this matter as a petition of writ of habeas corpus.
It does not appear in the first place that the petitioner has at all lodged an F.I.R. on the grievance as suggested. The document (Annexure-5) does not bear any receipt nor it is clear as to when and to whom it was submitted. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the petitioner made any such attempt and if an F.I.R. had not been registered thereupon, obviously, the petitioner had other remedies available in accordance with law. This apart, there does not appear any reason as to why in this matter, the petitioner has not taken recourse to the regular remedy available in law per Section 97 Cr.P.C.
On the suggestions as made, in our view, the petitioner ought to have taken recourse of regular remedies available in accordance with law rather than approaching this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus at this stage. The petitioner is still free to take recourse of the regular remedies in accordance with law.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
sudhir
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the facts disclosed by the petitioner make out a case for entertaining the petition as a writ of habeas corpus.
Whether the petitioner is required to avail regular remedies available under law before approaching this court in this matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lata Singh vs State of U.PReferred¶13
Lata Singh vs State of U.P : 2006 Cr.L.J. 3312
Pawan Khatri
State of Rajasthan
Dinesh Maheshwari
Banwari Lal Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
