IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1086 of 2010 APPU KUMAR SONY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 11.10.2010. Heard. This application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of Habeas Corpus with a direction to the respondents nos.6 and 7 to release his legally wedded wife, Madhu Kumari who is in illegal confinement of her parents i.e. respondents no.6 and 7. Considering the statements made in the Criminal Writ application, we find that on 24.6.2010 the petitioner along with his wife had willingly joined the company of the respondents no.6, 7 and 8. There is nothing to show that his wife was forcibly taken away by the respondents. In case she forcibly taken by respondents and kept in illegal and wrongful confinement, the petitioner do not take any immediate step by instituting a police case. The statement in the writ application is not corroborated by the statement made in the representation filed by the petitioner and sent to different authorities which encluded the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, D.I.G., Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna and the Chief Minister, Bihar and others. The remedy of the petitioner is either by instituting a police case or filing an application under 2 Section 97 of the Cr.P.C before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur or the S.D.O., Muzaffarpur. In case of instituting a police case matter will be investigated by the police and, allegations made by the petitioner if found correct, the investigating agency will take action in this regard. The petitioner if will file an application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned authority, then also steps for recovery of persons who is in illegal confinement, can be taken. There is nothing to show that application for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. This application is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)