Delhi High Court
Deepshikha Bhadauria vs State on 18 August, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 256/2010
DEEPSHIKHA BHADAURIA .... Petitioner
Through Rajat Wadhwa, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Roshan Kumar, Advocate for Ms.
Mira Bhatia, Additional Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 18.08.2010
1. On 10th June, 2009, Ms. Munni Devi had lodged a complaint with
the police station Bhajan Pura that her daughter-in-law Ms. Deepshikha
was missing. A missing person report was registered and inquiries were
taken up. During investigation, Ms. Munni Devi had made a statement
that Ms. Deepshikha had been abducted by Mr. Deepak Kumar, Mr.
Praveen Kumar and Mr. C.P. Singh. Thereafter, FIR No. 218/2009 under
Section 365/34 Indian Penal Code was registered in the police station
Bhajan Pura and investigation was made.
2. On 11th June, 2009, a complaint purportedly signed by Ms. Deep
W.P.(Crl.)256/2010 Page 1
shikah was received in police station Bhajan Pura. In this complaint it
was stated that she was living with her husband Mr. Praveen Kumar and
apprehended threat to her life from her parents and others. An
application for recording of statement of Ms. Deepshikha under Section
164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) was received on
14th June, 2009, in the police station Bhajan Pura from the duty
Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi with a direction to
report on 15th June, 2009. After receiving copy of the application, the
Investigating Officer visited the address mentioned in the application.
The Investigating Officer did not find Ms. Deepshikha or Mr. Praveen
Kumar, Mr. Deepak Kumar and Mr. C.P. Singh at the address. One lady,
wife of Mr. C.P. Singh, was found but she was not a position to give any
information. The Investigating Officer left a message that it was
necessary to record statement of Ms. Deepshikha under Section 162
Cr.P.C..
3. On 26th June, 2009, statement of Ms. Deepshikha was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Metropolitan
Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the said statement Ms.
Deepshikha had stated that she was in love with Mr. Praveen Kumar and
W.P.(Crl.)256/2010 Page 2
they had got married on 29th December, 2008 in the Arya Samaj temple
at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. She had further stated that she had gone to her
parental house and thereafter came to know that she was being married
to Mr. Sunil Shishodia. She protested and informed her parents about
her earlier marriage, but she was being forced into a marriage with Mr.
Sunil Shishodia. In her statement before the Magistrate under Section
164 Cr.P.C., she had stated that she wanted to live with Mr. Praveen
Kumar, her husband. After her statement, she was allowed to go with
Mr. Praveen Kumar to her matrimonial house.
4. After more than six months on 9th July, 2009, a missing person
report of Ms. Deepshikha was lodged by Mr. Praveen Kumar in police
station Farsh Bazar, Delhi. On inquiry, it was found that Ms. Deepshikha
was residing with her parents.
5. Ms. Deepshikah subsequently filed a Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.932/2009 for providing protection and appropriate security. She had
made allegations against Mr. Praveen Kumar and his relatives. Mr.
Praveen Kumar entered appearance and submitted that he had neither
threatened the petitioner or her family members, nor he would do so in
future. He had further stated that he was lawfully married to
W.P.(Crl.)256/2010 Page 3
Ms. Deepshikha and it was an inter-caste marriage and, therefore, Ms.
Deepshikha was facing opposition from her family members. The
statement made by Mr. Praveen Kumar was taken on record and it was
held that he would be bound by the statement. On the basis of the said
statement, counsel appearing for Ms. Deepshikha did not press the
petition at that stage and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. In the status report, it is mentioned that inquiries were conducted
by the Investigating Officer about factum of marriage between Ms.
Deepshikha and Mr. Praveen Kumar at Arya Samaj temple in Yamuna
Vihar. He has recorded statement of Mr. Jagnath Mishra, who had
stated that Ms. Deepshikha and Mr. Praveen Kumar had got married. He
had handed over a photocopy of the marriage certificate and other
supportive documents in respect of the said marriage. Statements of
marriage witnesses, namely, Mr. Kavit Singh and Mr. Nemichand
were also recorded by the Investigating Officer. The two witnesses as
per the status report had supported the factum of marriage of Ms.
Deepshikha with Mr. Praveen Kumar.
7. Mr. Praveen Kumar had filed Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.1197/2009 for issue of writ of Habeas Corpus. The said writ petition
W.P.(Crl.)256/2010 Page 4
was disposed of on 16th September, 2009. The Court recorded
allegations of Mr. Praveen Kumar that Ms Deepshikha was married to
Mr. Sunil Kumar Shishodia under pressure. The order records that the
matter was discussed with Ms Deepshikha, her parents and Mr. Praveen
Kumar in respect of the marriage between Ms. Deepshikha and Mr.
Praveen Kumar and the circumstances under which Ms. Deepshikha had
stayed with Mr. Praveen Kumar. It was noticed that Ms. Deepshikha
wanted to stay with Sunil Kumar Sishodia and as the writ petition was in
the nature of Habeas Corpus, she could not be compelled to go against
her wishes and stay with Mr. Praveen Kumar.
8. It is stated in the status report that final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. has been prepared and a cancellation report will be filed before
the Metropolitan Magistrate. It will be open to the petitioner to file
objection and contest cancellation report, if so advised. This aspect need
not gone into by this Court at this stage. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he has some documents and want to file them
with police. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that these
documents have been filed with the writ petition from pages 37 to 46. It
is open to the petitioner to file these documents with the Investigating
W.P.(Crl.)256/2010 Page 5
Officer. The Investigating Officer will consider and examine the said
documents in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 18, 2010
NA
W.P.(Crl.)256/2010 Page 6
