IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.461 of 2009 PRAKASH VERMA, s/o Shri Shiv Kumar Verma, resident of E-39, 1st Floor, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar Part – IV, PS Amar Colony, District South Delhi -110024 … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Patna, District Patna 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, District Patna 4. Smt. Anjali Sinha w/o Prakash Verma, d/o Chandeshwar Prasad, r/o Mohalla-3/26, Nav Vikash Colony, Ashiyananagar, PS Rajiv Nagar, District Patna 6. Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, S/o Late Bachchu Prasad, r/o Mohalla -3/26, Nav Vikash Colony, Ashiyana nagar, PS Rajiv Nagar, District Patna ………. Respondents ----------- 06 17.9.2009 Heard Mr. Anil Chandra for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, learned Standing Counsel no.15 for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner claims to be engaged in jewellery business in Delhi, and met respondent no.5 there where she was pursuing her higher studies. The petitioner claims to have married respondent no.5. Respondent no.6 is the father of respondent no.5. It is alleged in the writ petition that respondent no.6 has confined respondent no.5 in his house and is not allowing her to go to the petitioner’s house. The petitioner has placed on record certain documents in proof of their marriage. Annexure-1 is photocopy of a voucher which allegedly bears the signatures of respondent no.5, showing her as the proprietor of Shubham Jewellers, making offer to the prospective customers of certain benefits if diamond jewellery is purchased from the jewellery shop. Annexure-2 is photocopy of an Insurance Policy taken by respondent no.5 in which the petitioner is allegedly shown as the nominee in the capacity of husband. Annexure-3 is the photocopy of a - 2 - certificate, issued by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Defence Colony, New Delhi, which purportedly shows them to be joint allottees of a locker. This is accompanied with the proforma filled up by them and also bears their signatures. 3. By order dated 10.9.2009, respondent nos. 5 and 6 were directed to place on record their counter affidavits and were further directed to appear in this Court personally. They have filed a joint counter affidavit personally sworn by respondent no.5, and both of them are personally present in court. By the same order, we had prohibited the petitioner from appearing in the court in view of the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 5 and 6. 4. We have interviewed respondent no.5 in camera without the presence of anybody else, and have made a mental note of the conversations with her. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as the conversations with respondent no.5 in camera. In view of the materials on record, we do not get any impression that the petitioner and respondent no.5 are married. It further appears to us that the petitioner and respondent no.5 had some acquaintance which is sought to be exploited in a very unhappy manner by the petitioner. We cannot countenance such a situation at the instance of the petitioner, and cannot leave respondent no.5 to his vagaries. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed with a stern warning to the petitioner from creating any problem or nuisance for respondent - 3 - no.5 and her family. It will be open to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to bring to our notice any trouble created by the petitioner against respondent nos.5 and 6 and her family. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma) mrl