IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 896 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: April 19, 2010 Kulwinder Kaur Petitioner Versus Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondent No. 1 Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6 DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for release of detenue Vijay Kumar @ Rajinder Kumar – the husband of the petitioner from the illegal custody of respondents No. 2 to 6. The case came up for hearing on various dates. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6 as well as by State has been filed and even SSP Bhiwani was also directed to come present in the Court and an affidavit was also filed by him in this regard. The detenue – Vijay Kumar was not found in the custody of private respondents. The police searched various places as pointed out by the petitioner. Even at one point of time, the police visited Bombay where the detenue was told to be working at some Petrol Pump but on reaching by the police, it was found that the detenue had already left the place. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6 submits that the parents of said detenue have no concern with the alleged act of their son as they have already disowned him and he is not residing with them. Crl. Writ Petition No. 896 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel further submits that parents are unnecessarily being harassed by police as Vijay Kumar is neither in their custody nor they know about his whereabouts. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parents of Vijay Kumar are in constant touch with him and is being kept at some place with the help of police and, therefore, police is also not taking any action in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that contradictory stand has been taken by private respondents as well as by the police and no efforts have been made by the police to search out the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that it was a case of inter-caste marriage and petitioner belongs to weaker section of the Society and has made all best efforts to search her husband but to no effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also been asked to specify the place where detenue is being kept so that Warrant Officer can be appointed again to trace out said Vijay Kumar but he is not in a position to specify any place where the alleged detenue - Vijay Kumar resides. Learned counsel for the State submits that even at the time of search of the residence of respondents No. 4 and 5, Vijay Kumar was not found there and he is not in custody of his parents and they have made all efforts to locate his whereabouts but still they are not able to search out Vijay Kumar. Keeping in view the stand taken by the State, there is no scope of interference in the present petition as it can not be said that Vijay Kumar is in custody of respondents No. 4 and 5. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate action or to avail appropriate remedy by way of making a complaint before the police or any other remedy available under law. Crl. Writ Petition No. 896 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would file representation to SSP Bhiwani for her grievance and direction be issued to SSP Bhiwani to decide the same within some specified period. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to SSP Bhiwani that if any such representation is made, the same would be decided within two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation by passing speaking order. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 19.04.2010 JUDGE reena