Subhash vs State & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7391 Del

$~98
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Judgment Dated: 14th December, 2016
+                           W.P. (CRL.) 3522/2016

        SUBHASH                                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through    Mr.Sandeep Khatri, Advocate along
                                       with petitioner in person.

                            versus

        STATE & ORS                                          ..... Respondents
                            Through    Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
                                       with Mr.Tushar Sannu, Advocate for
                                       State/ respondent No.1 along with Insp.
                                       Jarnail Singh & SI Karamvir, PS
                                       Narela, in person.
CORAM:
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1.    The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
      the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of
      writ/order/directions to the respondents in the nature of Habeas Corpus,
      thereby directing the respondents to produce the daughter of the
      petitioner, namely, Ms.Komal, who is missing since 30.09.2016.
2.    As per the petition, on 30.09.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. the daughter of the
      petitioner, Ms.Komal, aged about 19 years, went to attend her c lass at
      Lakshya College, Narela. She was supposed to return back by 11.00
      a.m. but she did not come back. Upon inquiry from the college, the
      petitioner was informed that she did not come to attend her classes on
      that day. The petitioner as well as his family members and relatives tried
      to search Komal but in vain. On the same day in the evening, the

W.P. (C rl.) No.3522/2016                                            Page 1 of 2
       petitioner was informed that her daughter has married one Amit son of
      Satpal, respondent No.5.
3.    Respondents No.6 & 7 are the parents of respondent No.5. Further,
      respondents No.8 & 9 are the witnesses to the alleged marriage of the
      daughter of the petitioner and respondent No.5. The apprehension of the
      petitioner is that the respondents No.5 to 9 are either illegally confining
      the daughter of the petitioner or might have done something wrong with
      her.     Thus, by way of present petition, the petitioner has sought
      directions to the respondents to produce his daughter, namely, Ms.Komal
      before this Court from their illegal confinement.
4.    On the previous date, Komal was produced in the Court and she
      submitted that she has voluntarily married respondent No.5. She had
      met her father on that day. The parties were directed to remain present
      before this Court today as well.
5.    Today, Komal has met her mother. Komal submits that she does not
      want to meet her parents. Although the parents submit that they have
      accepted the marriage, but keeping in view the attitude of Komal, they
      wish to cut all social ties with her. However, both the parties undertake
      not to interfere in the day-to-day life of each other. The husband of
      Komal is present in Court; he submits that he would remain responsible
      for her well-being.
6.    In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as prayed.



                                                               G.S.SISTANI, J.

VINOD GOEL, J. DECEMBER 14, 2016/ka