CRL W P No. 2188 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRL W P No. 2188 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.12.2010 Anand Parkash ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. P S Sekhon, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of daughter of petitioner illegally detained by respondent No. 2 - Suresh Kumar. Pinki-daughter of the petitioner is stated to be illegally detained by respondent No. 2. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and a direction was also issued to respondent No. 2 to be present in court along with the alleged detenu, namely, Pinki on the date fixed. On the oral request, the petitioner was allowed to meet his CRL W P No. 2188 of 2010 2 daughter. Statement of Pinki-daughter of the petitioner, who is present in Court was recorded. It is stated by her that she has got married to respondent No. 2 out of her own free will and she is happily residing with him and wants to continue to live with him. In view of the statement made by the alleged detenue in Court today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions to withdraw the petition and further the petitioner has no objection if his daughter continues to stay with respondent No. 2- Suresh Kumar. It is further noticed by the Court that the petitioner who is suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with respiratory failure is on continuous intermittent oxygen inhalation. The petitioner was present in Court while under the said support system. He expressed his fear and stated that the police is harassing him at the behest of respondent No. 2. At this stage, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Suraj Mal, states that the FIR already stands cancelled and the petitioner shall not be harassed or called for in the police station for the purpose of the present case. In view of the above, the present petition is rendered infructuous and dismissed as such. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 17.12.2010 mohan