Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 Date of decision : 03.11.2008 Narinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Senior Superintendent of Police and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. H.S.Baath, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 9. S. D. ANAND, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that though he filed an adjournment slip, he does not press the request for the purpose afore- mentioned as the petitioner has turned up at the hearing. The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus with a prayer to direct the respondents to produce and to release the detenue namely Ranjit Kaur wife of the petitioner r/o H. No. 153, village Khiala Kalan, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, who was forcibly taken away from the custody of the petitioner by the respondents no. t to 9 in the intervening night of 31.3.2008/1.4.2008.” The averments, in course of the petition, were as under:- The petitioner and the detenue developed intimacy and announced their intention to marry which decision of theirs annoyed their Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 -2- **** parents and relations. Though the petitioner and the detenue would have liked to have the marriage go through with the blessing of elders and relations, they had no alternative but to marry in a Gurudwara Tarn Taran in the absence of the elders of the family. After they married, they filed a plea before the SSP and SHO concerned making a grievance of the fact that their person life was being interferred with by the parents of the detenue who too approached the police with a complaint and put pressure upon them to lodge the FIR against the petitioner for having kidnapped their daughter; where as they were living happily in their house. “It was account of the refrain on the part of the police in taking any action on the grievance of the petitioner and the detenue that they were impelled to file a plea before this court for their protection. That grievance by way of Criminal Misc. No. 3786-M of 2008, was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court ( R.S.Madan,J.) on 19.2.2008 by issuing a direction to the SSP concerned to decide the representation of the petitioners. Inspite thereof, the parents of the detenue entered their house on the night intervening 31.3.2008/1.4.2008 and forcibly took away Ranjit Kaur detenue. The petitioner lodged FIR No.75 dated 1.4.2008 against the private respondents. It is on the above allegations that the petitioner applied for writ of a Habeas Corpus for a direction to the respondents to produce detenue Ranjit Kaur who was forcibly detained by them.” In the counter filed on behalf of the private respondents No. 5 to 9, there is a precise allegation that the petitioner is already a married man with two children; he had allured the detenue and there is every apprehension that the petitioner may have either done away with her or kept her detained against her will for an ulterior motive. There is also another precise allegation that the petitioner has solemnised another marriage recently. Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 -3- **** The argument raised hereby is that the petitioner is a professional fraud and he is in the business of alluring the girl and then committing cheating upon them. Inspite of having sought an adjournment, the official respondents no. 1 to 4 have not opted to file a counter. In the face of the precise averment made on behalf of the private respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner entered into marriage with detenue only after the death of his first wife. Petitioner, who is also present in the Court in person in compliance with the orders dated 30.10.2008 of this Court, states that he has not entered into any other marriage recently. However, it is a matter of record that petitioner has not opted to file rejoinder which would have enabled him to rebut the averments aforementioned by verified pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the factum of his marriage with detenue is established by the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court ( R.S.Madan, J.) on 19.2.2008 in Criminal Misc. No.3786-M of 2008 (Annexure P-2). Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is also placed upon Annexure P/1 which purports to be a copy of an affidavit which detenue had sworn and had averred, in the course thereof, that she had married the petitioner of her free will. The plea advocated on behalf of the petitioner is totally devoid of merit. The petitioner has not placed on record any documentation, in the form of a marriage certificate or a photograph evidencing the performance of marriage ceremony before Guru Granth Sahib in a Gurudwara. The mere fact that a Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of Criminal Misc. No. 3786-M of 2008 (Annexure P-2) would not, by any stretch of interpretation, be deemed to constitute any recognition of the fact of there Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 -4- **** having been a marriage ( or a valid marriage, for the matter of that ) between the petitioner and the detenue. It is a matter of common observation that run away love born couples enter into marriage in the absence of their elders and file a petition for protection of their life and liberty. Those petitions are filed with a view to have protection from the onslaught of as the harshly their aggrieved parents. The filing of the petition would not, ipso facto, constitute a declaration on the part of the Court about the factum of marriage of the parties. In any case, the order (Annexure P- 2) does not at all enable the petitioner to argue that factum of his marriage with detenue had been accepted by the Court. Further, the petitioner has not placed on record copy of an order vide which the SSP, Amritsar may have disposed of the representation dated 7.2.2008 filed by the petitioner. As at the moment, thus, there is no evidence whatsoever on the file to prove that the petitioner ever entered into the impugned marriage, much-less valid, with the detenue. The petitioner has not even indicated the date of his death of his first wife. He had compulsively indicate that in the course of verified pleadings so as to prove that the alleged marriage with the detenue had not been entered into during the sustenance of his previous marriagte. Insofar as the private respondents are concerned, they have denied that the detenue is in their custody. Both the parties have already lodged First Information Reports against each other before the Police. It is only the action in the FIRs by the Investigating Agency which would reveal the factually correct position. Needless to say, the Investigating Agency would prove to fulfil its legal Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 -5- **** obligation to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion. In view, thus, of the fact that the petitioner has not opted to file a counter ( containing verified pleadings) to resist the relevant averments made by the petitioner and he has also not been able to place on record any material on the basis whereof he could be said to have locus standi to ask for a direction to the private respondents to produce the detenue, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. November 03, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE