Bombay High Court
Bajinder Kumar S/O Puran Chand And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 March, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
1/4 902-wp.4712.2015
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4712 OF 2015
1. Bajinder Kumar s/o Puran Chand
Aged - 26 years, Occupation : service
Having address at Siddhi Vinayak Chawl,
Valmiki Nagar, Baman Wada,
M.C.Chagla Marg,
Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai - 400 099.
2. Pratap Rana s/o Shishu
Aged - 50 years, Occupation : service,
Having address at Siddhi Vinayak Chawl,
Valmiki Nagar, Baman Wada,
M.C.Chagla Marg,
Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai - 400 099. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
having office at Bombay High Court,
Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
Crawford Market, Mumbai.
3. The State of Haryana.
Through Addl. A.G. Haryana.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Panipat.
Panipat, the State of Haryana.
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2017 00:11:03 :::
2/4 902-wp.4712.2015
5. Mr.Rampal Panchal
Age - Adult.
6. Mrs.Sarojdevi Rampal Panchal
Age - Adult,
Both residing at Gaon-Dharamgadh,
Tahsil - Mathloda,
District - Panipat,
State of Haryana - 132 140. ...Respondents
Mr.Omsharan Tiwari i/b Mr.V.X. D'silva, for the Petitioners
Mr. H. J. Dedia, A.P.P for the Respondent-State
Ms.Vaishali Chaudhari, for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the respondent no.6 - Saroj Devi Panchal and Rakhi,
who is present in person.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3/4 902-wp.4712.2015
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1
was married to Rakhi on 1st November, 2014. Thereafter,
petitioner no.1 and Rakhi underwent another marriage
ceremony on 5th April, 2015. They resided together as husband
and wife. Thereafter, since October 2015, Rakhi went missing.
Hence, petitioner no.1 lodged a missing complaint. In the
present petition, the petitioner no.1 has stated that the parents
of Rakhi were not happy with the marriage as he did not belong
to their caste and he apprehends that the parents of his wife -
Rakhi have taken her away. Respondent No.6 - Saroj Devi is the
mother of Rakhi.
4. Rakhi is present before us. She has produced her
Aadhar Card. So also respondent no.6 - Saroj Devi has produced
her Aadhar Card. Copies of which are taken on record and
marked 'X' colly., for identification. The petitioner no.1 has also
annexed photographs of his marriage and from the said
photographs, it can be seen that Rakhi who is present before
us, is the same person to whom reference is made by the
petitioners. Rakhi states that she does not wish to reside with
4/4 902-wp.4712.2015
the petitioner no.1 and that she is residing with her parents in
the State of Haryana of her own accord. She states that there is
no pressure or threat from her parents and she is residing with
her parents voluntarily and with her full and free consent. She
has specifically stated that she does not want to go back to
petitioner no.1. The date of birth of Rakhi, as seen from the
Aadhar Card is 8th March, 1992. Thus, it is seen that as of
today, the age of Rakhi is 25 years.
5. Looking to the statement made by Rakhi before this
Court, it cannot be said that it is a case of illegal detention.
Hence, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued. Hence, we are
not inclined to interfere and writ petition is rejected. Rule
discharged.
6. It would be open to the petitioner no.1 to approach
the appropriate forum for appropriate relief.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
