Delhi High Court
Abid Ali vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 November, 2018
#9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 12th November, 2018
W.P.(CRL) 3236/2018
ABID ALI ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanchit Guru, Advocate.
Mr. S.A. Rajput, Advocate for Ms. Shazia.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.), GNCTD along with Mr.
Chaitanya Gosain and Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocates for State.
SI Kulbir, P.S. Uttam Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has
been instituted on behalf of the father of Shaziya, predicated on the
allegation that, the latter has been kidnapped and seeking a direction for her
production before this Court.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that, Shaziya has admittedly
instituted a writ petition before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court at U.P.,
seeking a direction for police protection based on her assertion that, the
petitioner, who is her father, as well as, her mother, have threatened to cause
her grave harm and bodily injury.
3. It is also relevant to observe that, Shaziya has made a statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, duly recorded by a
Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction, as follows:
"मेरा नाम शिज़आ है । ȯȣ ` Ĩ 19 साल है । ȯȣ Û Ǔ Ȣ
01.01.1999 है । ɇएक लड़के नािज़म हुसैन से Ü ȡ करती थी।
मेरे घरवाले इस ȡȣके ͨ ȡ थे। Ǒ ȡȲ
09.01.2018 को ɇ
घर छोड़ कर ȣ गयी। ͩ Ǒ ȡȲ
30.01.2018 को ɇ ȯऔर
नािज़म ने Ǔ ȡ¡ कर ͧ ȡ। हमने Ǔ ȡ¡ मुड़ा इमाम िजला
अमरोहा UP Ʌͩ ȡ@ उसके बाद हमने इलाहबाद Ʌ Ȫ[ Ȱ
ǐ
भी कर ȣ@ ͩ हम मड़
ु ा इमाम Ʌरहने लगे। मेरे ȡ ɉ ने
आकर ¡ Ʌजान से मरने ȧ ȧȣͩ हम Ȫ ɉǑã ȣआकर
मोहन ȡ[ Ǘȣ ǔè के पास रहने लगे। न
ɇ े अपनी ȸसे
Ǔ ȡ¡ ͩ ȡ है । मझ
ु े कोई बहला फुसला कर ¡ ȣȲले गया."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would, however,
invite this Court's attention to an order dated 23rd April, 2018, passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby, an earlier order granting
protection to Shaziya was vacated, in view of the circumstance that, she was
stated to be a minor when she was kidnapped and she had already availed of
an order of protection from the Allahabad High Court at U.P. and further
that, she along with her purported husband, had not furnished their correct
address in the proceedings.
5. Insofar as, the allegations of Shaziya being a minor on the date of the
alleged offence is concerned, it would be relevant to note that the Delhi
Police has after due investigation, filed a cancellation report before the Court
of competent jurisdiction, in that behalf. In fact, it is further an admitted
position that, the petitioner has filed a protest petition before the said Court,
which is pending adjudication.
6. Further more, there is no denial of the position that, Shaziya of her
own volition, married Nazim Hussain, who is present before this Court and
states that, Shaziya is unable to travel to Delhi from Amroha, her
matrimonial home at Village Mundha Imma, P.S. Didauli District, Amroha,
U.P., on account of being in the family way.
7. A plain reading of the statement of Shaziya under Section 164 Cr.PC
further reflects that, she apprehending grave harm to her life and that of
Nazim Hussain her newlywed husband, at the hands of her parents, which
includes the petitioner, had moved the Court having territorial jurisdiction
for protection and that, the High Court of Allahabad at U.P. had issued
necessary directions, in that regard.
8. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that, Shaziya's well being
and safety are assured. We are further cognizant of her apprehension in
relation to her well being and safety in view of the threats purportedly
extended, as aforementioned, by her parents. In response to a submission
made on behalf of the petitioner, we have also asked him as to why he
cannot visit Shaziya at Amroha, where she currently resides, to be told that,
he apprehends a threat to his life, if he were to visit Amroha, in view of his
allegation that, his daughter has been forced to marry Nazim Hussain.
9. It is the duty of the Court to protect the newlyweds, as per the
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Ashok Kumar Todi vs Kishwar Jahan reported as AIR 2011 SC 1254,
wherein it has been held that, where the boy or the girl, as the case may be,
are majors, and if they undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, it is
the duty of all persons in the administration/police authorities throughout the
country, that their marital life should not be disturbed and the newlyweds
ought not to be harassed. Needless to state that, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to visit Shaziya at her matrimonial home in Amroha, U.P. or seek
further directions from the Court having territorial jurisdiction, in that behalf.
We further direct Nazim Hussain, who is present in Court before us to
facilitate the petitioner and his wife's visit to Amroha, in the event the latter
are desirous of visiting Shaziya. We, however, make it clear that, we have
expressed no opinion in relation to the allegation of kidnapping of Shaziya,
made on behalf of the petitioner.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view; no
further directions are called for in the present proceedings. The writ petition
is accordingly disposed off.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 12, 2018
RS
