Dismissed

Smt. Nisha W/O Shri Shyamsunder v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2018HC/245/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus petition filed regarding illegal detention of petitioner's daughter was dismissed because the petitioner filed a false affidavit suppressing a prior settlement that led to previous bail. Court initiated proceedings against the petitioner for perjury and misused process for extortion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- cost to Legal Services Authority and face prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for false affidavit.

Smt. Nisha W/O Shri Shyamsunder Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 245/2018

¶3

Smt. Nisha W/o Shri Shyamsunder, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Jatav, R/o Bahara, P.s. Nadbai, Bharatpur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, District Bharatpur

¶9

S.h.o., Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur

¶10

Pawan S/o Kedar, By Caste Jatav R/o Unchagaon, P.s. Sewar, District Bharatpur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gajraj For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.N. Sandu, AAG with Mr. Pankaj Sisodia. AGA Investigating Officer, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, SHO, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

29/11/2018

¶16

The writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed alleging that respondent No.5- Pawan S/o Kedar has illegally detained petitioner’s daughter. Para No.3 of the writ petition contains fact about the earlier incidence also where respondent No.5- Pawan abducted petitioner’s daughter thus an FIR bearing No. 65/2018 was lodged. Respondent No.5- Pawan was arrested therein but enlarged on bail. After coming out from jail, he again

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[HC-245/2018]

¶19

abducted petitioner’s daughter and, therefore, present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

This Court directed learned Additional Government Advocate

¶21

to call for the progress report of investigation pursuant to subsequent FIR No. 518/2018, Police Station- Nadbai, DistrictBharatpur.

¶22

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this is the second occurrence by respondent No.-5- Pawan. He had earlier abducted Ankita, a minor, and was arrested. He was, however, granted bail by the Court on settlement between the parties. Copy of settlement has been produced before the Court and is taken on record. The documents show that accused party agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and, out of it, Rs. 1,00,000/- was accepted at the time of execution of document. A settlement deed was then written by petitioner in pursuance of which, bail was granted though the Court was required to see Section 320 Cr.P.C. In any case, petitioner herein has not made reference about settlement entered with the other party. They have suppressed it from this Court thus incorrect affidavit has been filed before this Court. The petitioner remained successful in getting order for motion of the petitioner, thus she need to be prosecuted. Accordingly, matter is referred to the concerned Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for filing false affidavit before this Court.

¶23

The settlement deed executed by petitioner shows that she had lodged FIR under mis-guidance.

¶24

The aforesaid documents would be considered by the Court where matter is pending for trial.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[HC-245/2018]

¶27

Since we find that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, rather, filed a false affidavit. We are not inclined to further keep this matter pending. It is specially when an order for prosecution of the petitioner has been passed. The previous act of petitioner is nothing but to extract money with settlement. She has misused her position for it and mobilised the police for her gain.

¶28

The writ petition is thus dismissed with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

¶29

The compliance report of aforesaid would be seen by Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶30

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶31

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶32

S. Kumawat/25

Smt. Nisha W/O Shri Shyamsunder v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nisha W/O Shri Shyamsunder v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganeshlal Vs Ashok Kumar @ Pappu and Ors.

Rajulal S/O Babulal B/C Gujjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Narendra @ Mahendra S/O Shri Mangal Chand B/C Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Suresh S/O Chandaram Gurjar Vs the State of Rajastha

Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Mangalchand B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Singh @ Jalim Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp