IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1986 of 2011 Date of decision: 20th October, 2011 Jaspal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Additional AG Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate with Ms. Vijayata Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of Nikita Kumari, who is stated to be wife of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-4864 of 2011 decided on 15th February, 2011 to contend that the petitioner and alleged detenue Nikita Kumari had performed their marriage and had sought protection of their lives and liberty from this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has further shown various documents to contend that not only the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Nikita Kumari, but there was a long standing lover affair between them and they had been visiting various places. Criminal Writ Petition No.1986 of 2011 This case was taken up in the pre-lunch session and counsel for the parties were requested to intervene to resolve the differences between the parties. This Court appreciates the positive role played by counsel for the parties, especially Dr.Shushil Gautam, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that Nikita Kumari is under tremendous pressure and therefore, her statement that she intends to reside with her parents, is not voluntary. Learned counsel has further submitted that Nikita Kumari due to duress and coercion of her parents, is not giving true answers out of her free will. This Court has provided enough time to Nikita Kumari to reflect upon gravity of the situation. She has again stated that she intends to reside with her parents and does not wish to accompany the petitioner. In view of the categoric stand taken by Nikita Kumari, no further directions are called for in the present petition and the same stands disposed of accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 20, 2011 rps 2