Smt. Geeta Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 7321 ALL

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 7321 ALL
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2016

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Geeta Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 November, 2016

Bench: Pratyush Kumar




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 40177 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Jaiswal And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar, J.

Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mohammad Waseem, and Sri Abrar Khan, Advocates representing the respondent no. 3 alongwith the Corpus are present before the Court.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

Today, the corpus has been produced through her counsel and respondent no. 3.

On query the corpus has stated that her name is Smt. Geeta, today she has come to this Court all alone. She further said that she is aged about 24 years and at present she is residing at M.G. Road, Gurgaun, Haryana. On query she could not told her exact residential address at district Gurgaon, only she is telling to live near by Police Station, Gurgaon, there she is residing with her own free will. Lastly she told that she has not been detained by anyone against her wishes.

In view of the above the corpus is not illegally detained though on behalf of the petitioner Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, Advocate has submitted that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the corpus by the Investigating Officer, certain allegations have been made against the conduct of the corpus as also respondent no. 3, but this Court is only consider about the personal liberty of the corpus. Controversy which is in the matrimonial nature as also if the submissions of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, are correct, they may amount to commission of an offence, but this Court can not go into those areas and the petitioner no. 2, has remedy available elsewhere for the wrong done to him.

With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed and rule is discharged.

Order Date :- 30.11.2016.

Vinod.