HE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURE flT BILfiSPUR. CHHfiTTISBARH WRIT PETITION N0. OF' 2000 c PETITIONERS Saun •Ma.n.l.kpuri,; Agsd abaut 39 years,; W/o Ashok Kuma" Manikpuri R/a Rajiv Nagar, Nsar Balram Talkiss Police Sfcation Civil Lines Bilaspur » VERSUi 1. The State of Chhatt.i.sgarh Throuah Collecfcor b'i_lasp_yr 2. Supsr'intsindent of Pia 1 i cs ?_lla=pur 3= • Ths; -S t •.:':?.t i Dn Hc?u.s@ Q'fs.tc^r Folice Static-n Clvil Lln^s Bil-as.oyr 4. Muntu @ Santosh Pahadi Aged ahout 20 years S/o Preet^m Pah^di R/o Kududand,' B_i.IasRyr The St^tian Haus.e Qfticer Mahila Thana Lilaspyr yRir PETITIO.M UNDER ftRTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V? HJGH COURT OF CHH&TTXSG&RH, BIIASPBR (BryiSION BENCHt HGN'BLE Mr. CBIEF JBSTICE W.A.SHISH&K & HGN'BtE Mr. JUSTICE R.S.G&RG.) WRII PETITION N0.110/2000 Sauri Manilqpurl. Vs State ef e attl.sgarh and ©thers. O R B E R (Passed on 8/1/2001} Tbe feliowing order was passed by R.s.Sarg. J. By tbis petltion aafler Article226 of thecenstitution of India, the petitl.oner seeks the relief ef Habeas Cerpus la relatien to her daughter Manisha, maiialy en tbe grGuad that the girl was bom on 5/10/1983 and as the glrl was lcidnapped by non-applicant/respondent no.4 - Montu alias santosh pahadi end as tbe pelice was aet takLng preper actien ln the matter, the court nys't laterfere and direet respondeEts nes. 1 te 3 and 5 te nake searcb Inte whereabeuts ef the girl, restBEins the girl and give the custody t©tbe present petitloner. We on the allegatioas rnade !• the petitlon, on 15/12/20©0issaed rule nisi against respondents n®s.1 to 3 and 5 that they should nake a tteorougbseareh int©whereabouts of the glrl aad produce teer before ttae court. On the reqiiest @f Br.Staultla, tbe learned Deputy Advoeate General, tbe matter was taken up in supplenentary list* 2. For perusal ef thJLs court, Dr. shul'cla ^as produeed certaia doeuments contending that tbedate af birtb of the girl is 2/1/1982 aad not 5/10/1983 as asserted lay the greseA petitioaer. H e also subnits that on 30/8/2000 ®nas appllca- tion nade by tbe preseflt pe-bitionBF ander seetisn 97 ®f•tbe Cr.P.C.. Criainal case No<l69/20GO was regls-tered tey thelCity ;S!'1; '.f^ ..2 'l -2- Magistrete, BilaspBr* The said Clty Waglstrate la his tum issued aotice te saBtosb EWiadi aRd hls fattoer and reguired the present aEplicant/petltieaer and said Saateslii E'ahadi and hJ.s fatber Preetan Pabedi t@ appear befere Mn. Aeeordiag t®liia, the matter was taken up en 4.9,2000 bat the presenfc petltionsr fer the reaseias best kaewia te her did net qppear befere the Gity Magistrate, tberefere, the sald Sub-Bivisieael Magistrate after preductiea ©fthe glrl had t©proceed ia ttac natt.er· AecOEeU.ng te feini, thestatenents ef the glrl were recereled' on 4.8.2000 by the said Maglstra-te. The girl in hisr s-batenents on oath snbaitted befere thesald S.B.K. tbat ber date ef birth is 2nd Jaa. 1982 and as such on tlie date wben sbe left the custedy ®fthe nether sbe was najer. Sbe also stated laefere the S.B«K..tfeat after attalaAiig the i;a^fc ®fiaiseretien and najorl.ty, sbe bad narried said Saatosh Pabadi on 10,8.2000 and since thereafter sbe was llvlag with her hasbaad Saat@ste Eahadl. Sald (tenisba si.itmlttea coples ®fher mark-sbeets to satisfy the Maglstrate that sbe was ISGrs ®R2.l.1982• Prein ttee reeerds sutwiitted by Br. Shukla, It agpears /'U»at after the stateneaks ef said MaBl.sba, ttee said City Maglstrata eane t®the ceneluslon tliat the-girl ^.f w«s najer. She lef't the eustcdy ef tl»e netber bg ber own and after aarrying ti&e noh-appllcant ae.4 Santesh Eahadi, sbe was llvingwitbherlMisbaad. 3» The faet that enaB earller ©eeaslentfae glrl left tlie custedy @f ber parents is nentlened in 3 and paragraph 5.2 of the pietitloa. The petitioner bas als®sulwiitted ttaat en 24»1®»2©0Q wheh ttee s-r'.Iw-<-"-;*-'"t"*"' 2^ - 3 - petitioiier had gone -to ettend ber work, tbe relatives of santosh pahadi caae te her bouse and lcidnagped tbe glrl. In her petltj.en sbe did net say that she was requlred te appear be fere the City Magistrate oa 4/9/2000 aor did she diselese her abseRee on 4/9/200G whcn final erder was passedby the said s.B.M. 4. It weuld not be Becessary €& presune at tteis stage tbat after gainlng knewlalge ®feulnlnatien ef the pr*ceedings befere the Clty Maglstrate, the petltioaer filed tbls petltion, but we would be Justlfled in obser- ving, taking lato censl.deration the tetal records, that the glrl did appear befere the city Haga.stra'te on 4/9/2000, ber statenents were reci-rded by the said city Baglstrate. she had filed her nark-sheets t©sbow t^at she was aajer OB tha-t date and after recording the satisfaetlon, the said Clt.y Maglstrateset tbe girl st llberty. 5. As the glrl was already pEedueed befere tbe City Maglstrate, Bilaspur, who after a^ciag eaqulry iato the age ef tbe glrl, cane -te tbe conclusien that ©•the date of the incldent, so als®®nthe date ©fber productlen, she was najer, It 1s not necessary for us -t®enter inte further dispute as te what is the real date of birtb ef the girl. 6» At this stage. Shri Ayaz Nsved, the learaed couosel for the petitlenersubfflits that eaqalry nade en 4/9/2000 was flgfcex-parte. tberefere, the said ®rder deserves t;o be quaslied t»y tbis ceurt and the petitlon deserves to fee allewed peinl.'tting tbe petltioner to lead ev.i.dence te sbow to the eourt/city Magistrate that the date of birth ®fthe glrl was 5/1Q/19S3 end,aot 2/1/l98l2. ^ JfiL — 4 — , . ' ' 7. In eur cons.ldered opinA©n, laa petltien ef Habeas cocaas. it is necessary t®malce aa enqiiiBy inte tbe age @f a kidaapped person if there 1s ne avai.leible evidence ea -tbe record. we would Kave beea justified la giving afurther clirectlon to the learned Clty Maglstrate for Ii'ttlcy.ng a furtber enqairy provided the twe aark-sheets shewiag ttw date @f blrtb bad net been wj.th us. &s the two nark-afaeets show that tbe girl oa tbe date of the incldeBt and her productAen befere the Clty iBstgls'ferate was aajor aaa she was already prodaced before the ee^petent ©fflcer,we would n»t be Jusfci- fled la granti.jag as oppertunlty t®tha petj.tlenear after A).^&^_ ' _—. . quasbing lute ©r'derpass.ed by tbe CAty Msgistrate in tbese proceecll.ngs. If the petltl.oner feels aggrleved by the erder dated 4.9.2000, she weuld be free t@ cfaallenge the c^rrectBess, valldity andpropriety of tbe sald oider befare a cGnipetert CeuFt* 8) As.ttoe girl, even befere us, bas stated tbat she is major aad waats te go tdth herliusls^^a SBnfeesh pahadi, we ere aaable te Issue any farther directien in this netter. if ths petitioner files any aRpeal/revlsion against •tbe oader ef tbe City Magistrate er takes up the natter witb tbe hlgher autherity in appeal er revlslos, said appeal ®rrevl.sioa steall lae deeided by tb®said autfaority ia aecordance wl.tli law, without bcing .Inflttesced fey aay ebeeryatlons- nade In this erder as tbe vations aade in tbls petitioa are in relatlon to dl.spesel lef this petitl.en oaly. ' . ' 9. We find n®ressoa t@ grant tbis getitien. It is ! accerdiagly aismlsseia. Tlte rule nisJL is dlscberged. | ^-^. Sd/- Chief Justice 8/1/20©1 \.::..