1 D.B.HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.5611/2010 Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ..... Dated :: 8th July 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.I.R.Chudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.B.K.Mehar, Government Counsel. ..... BY THE COURT: The petitioner Ashok Kumar has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the submissions that his marriage with Ms. Kanchan Nirmal came to be solemnised on 27.05.2010. According to the petitioner, his date of birth being 20.07.1983 and the date of birth of his wife Kanchan being 10.07.1991, both of them are major in age. The petitioner alleges that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and their relatives were not happy with this marriage and the said respondents have forcibly detained his wife since 29.05.2010. The petitioner has alleged that he submitted an application on 01.06.2010 before the S.H.O. Police Station, Mathaniya about illeal detention of his wedded wife and until now, police has not taken any action against the respondents Nos.4 to 6 and the detenue has not been recovered; and even after his moving an application before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jodhpur on 10.06.2010, no action has been taken against the respondents Nos.4 to 6. 2 In this writ petition, the learned Vacation Judge directed issuance of notice to the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 on 23.06.2010. Reply has been filed on behalf of these respondents with the submissions that on 21.05.2010, a missing report was submitted by Mega Ram s/o Shivlal (respondent No.4) stating that his daughter Kanchan went to the college on 20.05.2010 but did not return. According to the respondents, the missing report was registered and special teams were sent in search of the girl but then, on 29.05.2010, the complainant Mega Ram himself submitted an application in the Police Station, Mathaniya stating that his daughter went to his relative's house of her free will and she having been found, no further proceedings were required on the missing report. According to the respondents, the statement of Ms. Kanchan was recorded on 29.05.2010; and copy of such statement has also been placed on record. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the police authorities have not taken any action against the respondents Nos.4 to 6 on the complaint made by the petitioner; and that the statements of Kanchan as allegedly recorded do not inspire confidence but then, in the given fact situation, we are unable to find any justification to continue with this petition for habeas corpus. From the submissions as made by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, it is borne out that Ms. Kanchan has in fact been found and she allegedly expressed her desire to live with her family. On the material as available before us, we are unable to find a case of 3 illegal detention of Ms. Kanchan. However, if at all the petitioner has any grievance, in our opinion, the petitioner has specific remedy of making appropriate applications before the concerned Magistrate per Sections 97, 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and nothing has prevented him from taking recourse to such specific remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not find any justification to consider issuance of any writ of habeas corpus at the instance of the petitioner. Of course, the petitioner is otherwise free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. With the observations aforesaid, this writ petition stands dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (A.M.SAPRE),J. MK