Pratap Ekka vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 146 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction)

                         W.P. (Cr.) (HB) No. 486 of 2021

Pratap Ekka, s/o-Shanti Mangal Ekka, aged 24 years, r/o-Village-Armai
Newa Toli, PO-Armai, PS-Gumla-835207 (Jharkhand)
                                                         ......Petitioner

                                          Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Officer In charge, Jagarnathpur PS,
PO&PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
2. City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, At-Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834001, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi
3. Raja Pradhan, s/o-not known, r/o-Bosco Nagar, Nepali Colony, Latma,
Singh More, Hatia, PO and PS-Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003
                                                            ... Respondents
                         ---------------
                                 (Heard through V.C. on 24th January 2022)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Petitioner         : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the State              : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
                            ---------------
                                Order
                               th
                            24 January 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The petitioner claiming himself in intimate relationship with X (name of the girl is concealed by the Court and hereinafter referred to as 'X') has made the following prayers:

"(a) Issue appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order directing upon respondent No. 1 and 2 to produce 'X', aged about 21 years, who is the daughter of Respondent no. 3 and allow her to be in the company of the petitioner as she is in illegal confinement of her parents against her wishes and consent.

(b) Issue appropriate writ/order/direction the Respondent No.1 and 2 to ensure the safety and liberty of the petitioner and 'X'."

2. The petitioner states that the girl aged about 21 years with whom he had a love affair and was planning to get married has been kept in illegal confinement by her father (respondent no. 3) in his house. 'X' being an adult has made a choice with her free will to marry him and stay with him but her father did not approve of their relationship because he belongs

to scheduled tribe community. He further says that on 23 rd February 2021 'X' came to his place but the next day her father visited his house with police officials, threatened him of filing false cases of kidnapping and rape and therefore under their pressure 'X' agreed to go back with her father primarily with a view to save the petitioner from false cases. He further says that on 9th March 2021 'X' fled away from her house and went to Mahila Thana at Kotwali PS, Ranchi but the police did not provide shelter to her rather called her parents who again took her back home. The petitioner who received this information came to Mahila Thana with his family members where he was asked to go to Jagannathpur PS but there also the police advised him not to pursue the case and threatened him with registration of false cases against him. The petitioner further states that 'X' approached him and asked him to get protection from the Court. She also informed him that her parents might file false case against him and therefore he should approach the Court. In support of the aforesaid statements, the petitioner has annexed copies of messages from 'X' and a copy of the letter written to the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi sent through e-Mail on 19th November 2021.

3. On 13th January 2022, the following order was passed by this Court:

"Upon a mentioning slip dated 11th January 2022 tendered by the petitioner, this writ petition (criminal) is listed on Board today.

2. This is a habeas corpus petition seeking an extraordinary relief of production of 'X' from the illegal custody of her father.

3. Mr. Arpit Sharma, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner but in course of hearing we find that he is not properly equipped with instructions. The learned counsel explains to us that he is not the counsel in the matter rather has been authorized by Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is on his legs in Court No.9 to assist the Court in item No.8.

4. We have waited till 11:00 AM for appearance of Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner but he failed to make his appearance before us. Constrained, we are postponing hearing of this writ petition (criminal) till recess.

5. The matter shall appear at 02:15 PM.

6. Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall remain present in the Court through virtual mode at 02:15 PM.

7. After the recess, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has joined the Court proceeding.

8. In course of hearing, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has given certain informations to us which are not recorded in the writ petition. On the question of delay in filing this habeas corpus WP (Cr.) No. 486 of 2021 petition, we find that there is no satisfactory explanation given by the petitioner. Plainly speaking, this writ petition is bereft of foundational facts on certain

aspects. Still, believing the petitioner a truthful litigant, we are inclined to invite an affidavit from the State.

9. Let the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi file his personal affidavit in the matter after an inquiry which, of course, would include statement of the petitioner recorded in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

10. Post this matter on 24th January 2022.

11. The petitioner is directed to file his affidavit which may be sent through e-mail within one week disclosing number of all the mobile phones which were used by him and 'X'.

12. It is hereby directed that the petitioner shall not delete any message received or sent by him in the last one year."

4. In compliance of the order dated 13 th January 2022, an affidavit has been filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit disclosing details of the mobile phone numbers through which he was in contact with 'X'.

5. In the affidavit dated 21st January 2022 filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, it is stated that the petitioner appeared in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi on 18th January 2022 and gave his written statement. An inquiry was made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi on certain aspects from the petitioner in response to which he said that 'X' informed him about misbehaviour by her parents. He further said that 'X' informed him on 23rd February 2021 that her parents wanted to marry her against her will and therefore next day both of them fled away. From the affidavit dated 21st January 2022, we gather that 'X' gave her statement in presence of a lady Executive Magistrate and a lady Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. During the inquiry, 'X' made a statement that her parents were trying to get her married with someone else against her will and that she wants to marry the petitioner but her parents were not ready.

6. Copies of the written statement of the petitioner, statements made by the petitioner during inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and hand written statement of 'X' are brought on record.

7. Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now since it has come on record that 'X' was forcefully brought home by her father and she is being forced to marry some other person against her will, these incidents are sufficient to hold that she is kept in illegal confinement of her father. The learned counsel for the petitioner

refers to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Idrish Mohd. v. Memam and another" (2000) 10 SCC 333 and the judgments in "Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas" (2018) 2 SCC 197 and "Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi & others" (1976) 3 SCC 234, to support his submission that 'X' who has attained the age of majority is entitled to make her choice and enjoy her freedom as the law permits.

8. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP has opposed the petition.

9. From the materials on record what we gather is that there are substantial variance in the averments made in the writ petition and the statements made by the petitioner before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. The petitioner who claims that he is in love with 'X' who wants to marry him has made certain statements in the writ petition which are either not found correct during the inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police or are not supported by the statement of 'X'. In her written statement, furnished by 'X' to the police, she has stated that she was making her statement without any fear and pressure. She made her statement in presence of a lady Executive Magistrate and a lady Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and, therefore, there is no reason for us to think otherwise. From her statement dated 17th January 2022 vide Annexure-D, what we gather is that her parents wanted to get her married with some other person but she wants to marry the petitioner for which her parents are not agreeable. In her statement nowhere she has indicated that she was restrained from moving out from her house or that she has been kept in illegal confinement. Contrary to the statement made by the petitioner that her father was misbehaving with her, 'X' has not made any such allegation against her father or the parents in her statement dated 17th January 2022. The text messages are not verifiable and we do not find any substance in the petitioner's claim that 'X' asked him to approach the Court.

10. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all relevant for the present purpose. "Idrish Mohd." was a case entirely different on facts. He claiming himself as husband of a major girl who was kept in Nari Niketan had approached the Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that she having attained the age of majority cannot be detained against her wishes. In "Soni Gerry", the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed as under:

"9. .......Suffice it to state that we had directed the daughter of the petitioner to remain personally present in Court and gave the responsibility to the father to see that she is present. She has appeared. She has, without any hesitation, clearly stated that she intends to go back to Kuwait to pursue her career. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that as a major, she is entitled to exercise her choice and freedom and the Court cannot get into the aspect whether she has been forced by the father or not. There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her father in Kuwait, but we are not concerned with her reasons. What she has stated before the Court, that alone matters and that is the heart of the reasoning for this Court, which keeps all controversies at bay.

10. It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual's life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation."

11. "Soni Gerry" approached the High Court of Kerala in a habeas corpus petition for production of her daughter from the custody of her husband. The daughter made a statement in the Court that she wanted to go back to Kuwait to pursue her career and in these facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the girl being a major was entitled to exercise her choice and freedom. The case of "Gian Devi" was also on a different footing. She was kept in the Nari Niketan. Taking note of her unequivocal desire that she did not want to stay in Nari Niketan the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that her detention in Nari Niketan was not in accordance with law.

12. As noticed above, the whole claim of the petitioner is that he is in relationship with 'X' who also wants to marry her. But then, without any corroboration from the statement made by 'X' that she has been kept in illegal confinement and not permitted to move out from the house, the petitioner cannot maintain this habeas corpus petition and, accordingly, we hold that he has no locus to maintain this habeas corpus petition.

13. From what transpired during the inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, we find that the petitioner has made certain false statements in the writ petition, such as, neither the petitioner nor 'X' approached Jagannathpur PS or Mahila PS nor did they submit any written application narrating their grievances.

14. Para-11 of the counter-affidavit dated 21st January 2022 reads as under:

"11. That it is stated and submitted that the Senior S.P., Ranchi has also inquired as to whether the petitioner or the girl namely 'X' have ever approached Jagannathpur P.S. Or Mahila P.S., Ranchi with their grievances. Upon inquiry, it revealed neither the petitioner nor the girl have submitted any written application in the said Police Stations."

15. We further find that 'X' has also not made any statement that she had gone to Jagannathpur PS or Mahila PS, Ranchi for help.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.(Cr.)(HB)No. 486 of 2021 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Sudhir/Tanuj