Crl. W. P. No. 1522 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1522 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 23, 2011 Jagir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. N. K. Manchanda, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 7. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jagir Singh – petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant criminal writ petition. The petitioner is grandfather of the alleged detenue Jashandeep Singh aged about 3½ years. Petitioner's son Jarnail Singh (father of the alleged detenue) has since died. According to the petitioner, as per compromise (Annexure P-1), the minor child Jashandeep Singh was to remain in the custody of his grandparents i.e. petitioner himself and his wife and accordingly, they were in custody of the said minor. Respondent no.4 is mother of alleged detenue, whereas Crl. W. P. No. 1522 of 2011 2 respondents no.5 to 7 are father, brother and uncle respectively of respondent no.4. According to the petitioner, two days before the filing of this writ petition, respondents no.4 to 7 came to petitioner's house and forcibly and illegally snatched Jashandeep Singh from lawful custody of petitioner and his wife and since then, the child is in illegal custody of respondents no.4 to 7. It is also alleged that respondents no.4 to 7 also forcibly obtained signatures of the petitioner on blank paper with the help of police officials accompanying them. Reply on behalf of respondents no.4 to 7, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. In the reply, it has been alleged that after the death of Jarnail Singh, the petitioner and his family members turned out respondent no.4 from the matrimonial home and forcibly snatched her minor son i.e. the alleged detenue. On application moved by respondent no.4 to Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ferozepur as well as to Human Rights Commission (in short – the Commission), which also forwarded the application to SSP, Ferozepur, inquiry was marked to DSP (Rural), Ferozepur. Order of the Commission has been annexed as Annexure R-2 and copy of application has been annexed as Annexure R-1. Thereupon, the matter was settled between the parties on 24.06.2011 in the presence of concerned SHO and respectables of the Village and the child was handed over to respondent no.4. Copy of the compromise has been annexed as Crl. W. P. No. 1522 of 2011 3 Annexure R-3. None is appearing for the petitioner today in spite of pass over. None either appeared for the petitioner on the preceding date of hearing. Compromise (Annexure P-1) relied on by the petitioner to claim custody of the minor child has not even been signed by respondent no.4, who is mother of the child. On the other hand, compromise (Annexure R-3) purports to have been signed by the petitioner and according to this compromise, the child is to remain in custody of respondent no.4, to whom the child was handed over on 24.06.2011, pursuant to compromise. From the averment made in the writ petition itself, that signatures of the petitioner were obtained on blank paper, it is manifest compromise Annexure R-3 has been signed by the petitioner, whereas alleged compromise Annexure P-1, set up by the petitioner, has admittedly not been signed by respondent no.4. In addition to the aforesaid, as per reply, date of birth of the child is 17.10.2009 and thus, the child is less than two years of age, although in application Annexure R-1, age of the child was mentioned as 2½ years, as also consequently mentioned in compromise Annexure R-3. The child is now in the custody of his mother. In view of this circumstance also, it would not be appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction regarding custody of the minor child because the petitioner can approach the Guardian Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of Crl. W. P. No. 1522 of 2011 4 with liberty to the petitioner to approach Guardian Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. September 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE