Satendra Kumar Srivastava And ... vs State Of U.P. & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3434 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49 A.F.R.
 
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 43473 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Srivastava And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Hitesh Pachori
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA.

Petitioner no. 1 is the father of the alleged detenue Vandna @ Teetu. In respect of her elopement, FIR of crime no. 472 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was got registered at P.S. New Agra, District Agra. After registration of the said FIR, a habeas corpus writ petition was filed by alleged husband Shiv Shanker @ Banty being Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 41975 of 2008.

In the aforesaid habeas corpus writ petition, the alleged detenue appeared and gave her statement that she wants to reside with her husband. The order passed in the aforesaid petition is annexure no. 2 to present habeas  corpus petition. In the aforesaid habeas corpus writ petition, the alleged detenue disclosed her age to be 28 years and has also informed the date of her marriage as 14.6.2008. In view of aforesaid statement by the alleged detenue Vandana @ Teetu, that habeas corpus writ petition was dismissed by this court.

It seems that in the aforesaid crime no. 472 of 2008, after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken and case no. 6864 of 2010 under the aforesaid offences was registered in the court and 82-83 process have been issued by C.J.M. It is at this stage that father has preferred this habeas corpus writ petition because petitioner no. 2 Vandana @ Teetu is not traceable.

On the aforesaid facts, it is perceptly clear that Vandana @ Teetu is residing with her husband on her own volition. She is not traceable, ostensibly for the reason that she is residing with her family at a place where the police is unable to lays its hands. Since the Vandana @ Teetu is not in illegal detention, habeas corpus writ petition is not maintainable. In case, a charge sheeted accused is not appearing in court and has been declared to be an absconder, the remedy for the victim is to approach appropriate authorities or take refuse its this court in an appropriate writ. Habeas corpus writ petition are not meant for such purpose. A habeas corpus writ petition is maintainable only when some corpus is under illegal detention against his or her wish and the person, who is filing the petition is interested in knowing whereabout the corpus, production of the corpus and its release from the cluches of illegal detention.

In the present case, the corpus is absconding but she is not under illegal detention. There is an order passed by this court favouring her to reside with her husband and, therefore, the present habeas corpus writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

Order Date :- 3.8.2011/AKG/-