Sarita vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5589 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved 
 
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 41283 of 2012
 
Sarita Vs. State of U.P. and others 
 
******
 
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.and Sri Ravesh Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5

This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of Sarita , daughter of Sahab Singh through her next friend Anurag Yadav with the prayer that :

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondent No.4 to produce petitioner before this Hon'ble Court and she may be set at liberty forthwith.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certioary quashing the impugned order dated 27.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandara Rau , district Hathras ( Mahamaya Nagar).

(c ) Issue any such other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.

The facts, in brief of this case are that a report dated 27.7.20012 submitted by Sri R.P.Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras to SDM Sikandra Rau, District Hathras mentioning therein that Km. Sarita, aged about 21 years was found roaming in Sikandra Rau, her family members were called at police station where Km. Sarita refused to go in their company because she was having love affairs with a boy, she wanted to go with that boy. There was apprehension of breach of peace. The prayer was made that statement of Km. Sarita be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.and Km. Sarita be given in safe custody of some one, that application was also forwarded by Sri N.K.Yadav, Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras for recording her statement on 27.7.2012. The statement of Km. Sarita was recorded by S.D.M. Sikandra Rau on 27.7.2012 in which she stated that she was aged about 22 years, she was educated upto 8th Class, she was having two sisters, father and mother , her father was abusing her, her elder brother was working in Faridabad in a factory, all are unmarried, she wanted to marry with Anurag, she had gone in his company to Aligarh on 17.7.2012, she stayed there, she was told by Anurag to reach at police station from where their mission will be completed, thereafter she alone went to police station where she stayed for 3 days, Anurag came to the Police Station Sikandra Rau on 26.7.2012, he was at the police station, they have not performed the court marriage, Anurag belongs to her caste , her father is not agreed with above proposal, the villages are also not agreed, she did not want to leave with her parents, she wanted to go with Anurag. After recording her statement, Sri J.K.Jain, S.D.M Sikandra Rau, passed the order dated 27.7.2012 by which the corpus has been sent to Rajkiya Mahila Ashram ( Nari Niketan, Mathura). The order dated 27.7.2012 is under challenge in the present petition. In the present case, respondent no. 5 Sahab Singh, the father of the corpus Km. Sarita, Mahendra Pal Singh, father of Anurag Yadav and Anurag Yadav appeared before this Court. Sri R.P.Singh,Sub Inspector, Sri N.K.Yadav Inspector and Sri J.K.Jain , SDM Sikandra Rau, District Hathras also appeared before this Court.

On query made by the Court, Sri R.P.Singh , who submitted report dated 27.7.2012 could not explain proper reason as to why he submitted the report that Corpus was roaming in Sikandra Rau. The proper reason has not been shown by Sri N.K.Yadav while forwarding the report submitted by Sri R.P.Singh for recording the statement of the corpus. Sri J.K.Jain, SDM Sikandra Rau also appeared before the Court, he could not explain as to why he exercised the powers of recording the statement of the corpus and sent corpus to Nari Niketan for which Sri R.P.Singh, Sri N.K.Yadav and Sri J.K.Jain tendered their unconditional apology.

On query made by the Court, respondent no. 5 Sahab Singh stated that Anurag Yadav belongs to his family, he is having blood relation-ship in the same family, the marriage of the corpus may not be performed. It has been endorsed by Sri Mahendra Pal Singh, the father of the Anurag Yadav. He is a practising Advocate, he started weeping in the Court by saying that his son is drunkard and due to his conduct his image has fallen down in the society, the marriage may not be performed in the family, the corpus happens to be the sister of Anurag Yadav in family relation-ship.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that corpus is having love affairs with Anurag Yadav, she is major, aged about 22 years, she has completed her education upto 8th standard, she wants to marry with Anurag Yadav who belongs to the family of corpus but in the 6th generation. The family members of corpus and Anurag Yadav are not agreed on the proposal of the marriage, the corpus has clearly stated that she does not want to go with her parents and she wants to marry with Anurag Yadav but the SDM Sikandra Rau has committed the error by sending the corpus in Nari Neketan where she does not want to live, she may be released from Nari Niketan forthwith.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. And that Sri Ravesh Kumar appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 that marriage of the corpus may not be performed with Anurag Yadav because the corpus is cousin sister of Anurag Yadav, they are having blood relationship, even according to the Hindu Law, their marriage may not be performed. In the present case, Sri R.P.Singh, Sub Inspector, Sri N.K.Yadav, Inspector of police station Sikandra Rau played a vital role in creating present problem in the family of the corpus and Anurag Yadav. The report dated 27.7.2012 submitted by Sri R.P.Singh Sub Inspector Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras is contradicted by the statement of corpus recorded by the City Magistrate, Sikandra Rau. According to this report , the corpus was found roaming in Sikandra Rau whereas the statement of Corpus shows that she had come three days back to the police station where she was detained , even one day prior to submitting the report, Anurag Yadav also came to the police station on 26.7.2012 , on the day of submitting the report Anurag Yadav was detained in the Police Station Sikandra Rau and without any complaint by saying that corpus was roaming in Sikandra Rau as Awara , her arrest has been shown which is having no reason, it shows that at the police station in a pre-planned manner, a scheme was chalked out so that the corpus may be handed over to Anurag Yadav, Sri J.K. Jain, S.D.M.Sikandra Rau also did not apply his mind and without verifying the false report with regard to apprehension of breach of peace, passed the order recorded the statement of corpus and sent her Nari Niketan on 27.7.2012, all the 3 officers were ignorant in performing their duties and admittedly Km. Sarita has not performed the marriage with Anurag Yadav only on the basis of love affairs she may not be handed over to Anurag Yadav. The learned S.D.M. Sikandra Rau was having no option except to send the corpus to Nari Niketan, the present petition is devoid of the merit and the same may be dismissed.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A.and Sri Ravesh Kumar Singh , learned counsel appearing on behalf of respodent No. 5, the corpus has appeared before the Court, she stated that she is major and she wants to marry with Anurag Yadav who does not belong to her family , he is resident of her village, she does not want to live at her parents' house and she does not want to live in Nari Niketan, she wants to go in the company of Anurag Yadav but her statement is controverted by her father , respondent no. 5 Sahab Singh and father of Anurag Yadav, namely, Mahendra Pal Singh. Sri Mahendra Pal Singh is a practising Advocate, he stated that respondent No. 5 Sahab Singh is his cousin, they belong to same family, the corpus happens to be cousin sister of his son Anurag Yadav. His son Anurag Yadav is a drunkard, he is aged about 20 years, due to the act done by Anurag Yadav his reputation has been lowered down in the society. Sri Mahendra Pal Singh became immotional in Court and started weeping, he stated that in any case, the marriage of his son Anurag Yadav may not be performed with corpus. Similar statement has been given by respondent no. 5 but Sri Anurag Yadav stated that he is having love affairs with the Corpus and he wants to marry with the Corpus. The Corpus and Anurag Yadav did not state that they have performed marriage. In such circumstances, Anurag Yadav is not husband of the corpus, he may not be natural guardian of corpus, therefore, the corpus may not be given to his custody.

The corpus appears to be major, her father stated before the court that he is ready to keep her daughter and he shall perform the marriage at suitable time. She does not want to live in Nari Niketan, even, the manner in which the report was submitted by Sri R.P.Singh, S.I. Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras, which was forwarded by Sri N.K.Yadav , Inspector Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras and the corpus was produced before the SDM Sikandra Rau where her statement was recorded and impugned order has been passed is not proper. In such a manner, the police may not be permitted to play with life , liberty and prestige of a person. The act done by Sri R.P.Singh S.I. Police Station Sikandra Rau, Sri N.K.Yadav, Inspector Police Station Sikandra Rau is hereby condemned. Sri J.K.Jain , SDM Sikandra Rau also did not perform his duty as a responsible Officer in passing the impugned order, it has been passed beyond the presecribed norms. The impugned order dated 27.7.2012 is illegal, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.7.2012 is hereby set a side. The corpus is un married girl and she is major, she shall be released forthwith from Nari Niketan, Mathura, her natural guardians are father and mother, no reason has been shown by her having an apprehension of her life at her parents' house, therefore, she shall be taken back to her parents house, the respondent No. 5 shall protect her interest being her father and Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Sikandra Rau, District Hathras is directed to ensure that the life and liberty of the corpus may not be put in any danger.

Here in the present case it appears that a problem has been created in two families by Sri R.P.Singh, Sub Inspector of Police Station Sikandra Rau, Sri N.K.Yadav, Inspector Police Station Sikandra Rau and Sri J.K.Jain, SDM, Sikandra Rau, for which they have tendered unconditional apology, the same is accepted.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Dated :  November     9 , 2012.
 
Su