In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Writ Petition No.95 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:15.4.2009 Mangu .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent No.1-State. Mr. Suresh Pal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. ..... S.S. Saron, J. On second call, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to produce Smt. Meena wife of the petitioner and daughter of respondents No.2 and 3 in this Court as she is in illegal detention of respondents No.2 to 4. In the reply filed by Inspector Safi-U-Din, SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat on behalf of respondents No.1 and 5, it is stated that ASI Jai Singh visited the house of respondents No.2 to 4 where Mahinder Singh (respondent No.2), father of alleged detenue Meena and other family members met him. They got their statements recorded that no marriage of Meena was solemnized with Mangu (petitioner) as alleged by him. They further stated that Meena was enticed away by the petitioner and he kept her Cr. Writ Petition No.95 of 2009 [2] for some days with him and thereafter she fled from his custody and started living with them. Now she had gone to the house of her grand-father, namely, Attar Singh in Village Bhadaipur, District Muzaffarnagar (UP) and her whereabouts were not known. In the reply filed by respondents No.2 to 4, it is stated that Meena is a minor and her date of birth is 5.8.1994 as per her school leaving certificate. It is stated that the petitioner along with his relatives, namely, Ishwar Pal, Rajinder Seth, Binder and Gangu had kidnapped the daughter of respondents No.2 and 3 from the house of her father (respondent No.2) at Muzaffarnagar. Respondent No.2 visited the local Police Station Muzaffarnagar many times but the Police had not taken any action. It is stated that respondents No.2 to 4 are labourers and they are doing their job in Panipat. It is also stated that no marriage had taken place between the petitioner and the daughter of respondents No.2 and 3. Even otherwise Meena being a minor, her marriage was not permissible under the law. Keeping in view the reply filed and also the fact that no one is present on behalf of the petitioner on second call, it appears the petitioner is not interested. Dismissed. April 15, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*