Crl. Writ Petition No. 1261 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Crl. Writ Petition No. 1261 of 2011 Date of decision: August 11,2011 Sunny Sharma ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present: Mr. A.D.S. Ghumman,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Silesh Gupta, DAG,Punjab for the respondent No.2 ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) Sunny Sharma has invoked the jurisdiction of this court by filing the instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the petitioner married with one Vinu Malik against the wishes of her parents and apprehending threat to their lives and liberty, they sought protection from this court by filing Criminal Misc. No.38510-M of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P-2) with direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala to look into the complaint of the petitioners and to take action thereon if it is found that there is any threat to their lives and liberty. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are brother and father respectively of petitioner's wife Vinu Malik. Respondent No.6 filed false and frivolous cases against petitioner and his family members. On assurance that all such cases would be withdrawn, petitioner's wife Vinu Malik herself went to the parental house in village Kakrauli Kalan, District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) i.e., at the place of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, allegedly under pressure from them and is in their illegal detention there. It is not specifically averred in the writ petition as to when Crl. Writ Petition No. 1261 of 2011 2 petitioner's wife Vinu Malik (alleged detenue) went to respondent Nos. 6 and 7, but counsel for the petitioner referred affidavit Annexure P-1 dated 11.3.2008 allegedly affirmed by Vinu to contend that she was under pressure of her parental family. However, there is nothing on record to depict as to when petitioner's wife allegedly went to the place of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioner sought issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus to secure release of the alleged detenue from illegal detention of respondent Nos.6 and 7. Notice of motion was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 4 only,i.e., Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala District Gurdaspur and Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). Respondent No.2 has already put in appearance through counsel and reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Copy of the reply now supplied to counsel for the petitioner. Notice issued to respondent No.4 has not been received back served or otherwise. On the preceding date of hearing, it was ordered that counsel for the petitioner shall address the Court as to how this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid aspect and perused the case file. At the outset, it may be added that material on record including statement (Annexure R-1) made by the petitioner to the police in FIR No.50 dated 24.3.2008 of Police Station Batala relating to murder of petitioner's father depicts that the petitioner's wife went to respondent Nos.6 and 7 some time in March, 2008. The instant petition has been filed in June, 2011, i.e., after delay of 3 years 3 months. As regards territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a very strange contention submitting that this Court has wide and ample jurisdiction to summon any Gazetted Officer from any part of the country. The contention is completely misconceived and irrelevant in the instant case. Crl. Writ Petition No. 1261 of 2011 3 Petitioner's wife herself went to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in district Muzaffarnagar, although allegedly under pressure from respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Petitioner's wife is allegedly in detention in district Muzaffarnagar, having been detained there by respondent Nos.6 and 7. Consequently, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file writ petition in Court of competent jurisdiction. August 11,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE