IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.195 of 2010. Decided on: 29th December, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Adilinsha ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For respondents 2 &3: Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J.(Oral) By means of present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.8.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, declining to issue search warrant under Section 97 of the of Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby he prayed to produce Parul Gupta claiming her to be his wife having been allegedly confined by the respondents. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. The petitioner professes Islam and respondents No.2 and 3 are Hindus and real brothers. Petitioner alleged that he had performed marriage with Ms Parul Gupta, as per Mohammedan rites and the custom prevalent in the Illaqua by executing an affidavit. It is alleged that on 15.2.2010 when he was away from his house to earn his livelihood respondents forcibly and illegally took away said Parul Gupta from his house and kept confined her in their house at Mohalla Sapri in District Chamba. When he visited their place and requested to release her, he was threatened with dire consequences. It was his case that respondents were trying to get Parul Gupta married, his wife somewhere else in Punjab. She was confined against her wishes. He had also filed an application of the similar nature before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamba, which was withdrawn on 17.2.2010. 3. Notice to the respondents was issued. They contested the claim. In their reply, before the learned trial Court raised the issue of maintainability of the petition and his locus-standi. Further contended that no marriage between Muslim male and Hindu girl could be performed and pleaded that there was no such custom, as alleged. The petitioner has tried to misuse the process - 3 - of the Court. Thus, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 13.8.2010 the application seeking the above relief, filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. 6. I did not find on record to conclude that there is any prima facie evidence with respect to the marriage of the petitioner with Ms. Parul Gupta. There is not even a passing reference that either of them, had changed their religion and performed the marriage, as per custom and rites prevalent in that particular religion. Even the photostat copy of the affidavit produced before the learned trial Court was not an attested copy. The original was not produced. The father of Parul Gupta, respondent No.2 denied any marriage as alleged. When she is in the house of her parents, there is no justification, in absence of any proof of marriage as aforesaid for the issuance of search warrant. Therefore, no interference is called for. As such, the petition is dismissed. December 29, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)