Deepak Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3805 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20 of 2022

Deepak Saini                                        ........... Petitioner

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                     ........ Respondents



Present :     Mr. Susheel Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State.



                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed for

production of the corpus, who is according to the

petitioner, his wife and who is in the illegal detention of

the respondent no.4, who happens to be her father.

2. According to the petitioner, he and the corpus,

both have married, but the father of the corpus, the

respondent no.4 had filed FIR No.1 of 2022 against the

petitioner. On 11.11.2022, the Court requested the

learned State counsel to get the statement of the victim

recorded in the FIR No.1 of 2022, which was lodged by

the respondent no.4 against the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that, in

fact, in her statements given under Sections 164 and 161

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the

Code"), the corpus has levelled various allegations against

the petitioner. She has stated that atrocities were

committed by the petitioner on her. He married her by

force and by deceit. The report, which is receipt from

Prem Lal Tamta, Investigator, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, District Pauri Garhwal, dated 14.11.2022, is

tendered by learned State counsel, it is placed on

record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner and the corpus, both are

married and major.

6. It is not the question, whether the corpus is

major or not? But, the fact remains that the FIR was

lodged by the father of the corpus. The corpus during

investigation has revealed that, in fact, the petitioner

cheated her by deceitful means and forced to marry him

and thereafter continued committing cruelty and

atrocities.

7. In view of what is stated hereinabove, there is

no substance in this petition and it deserves to be

dismissed.

8. The petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.11.2022

Sanjay