Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 29, 2011 Saanjha Sahyog Sangathan Mata Savitribai Phule Kanya Vatika .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 5. Respondent no.5 also in person. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Saanjha Sahyog Sangathan Mata Savitribai Phule Kanya Vatika – petitioner (allegedly running an Orphanage) has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent no.5 allegedly tortured his daughters Poonam, Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 2 Preeti and Mala (alleged detenues) after death of their mother in the year 2008. The alleged detenues took admission in Apna Ghar Orphanage and lived happily there. However, respondent no.5 used to try to outrage the modesty of alleged detenues there. He wanted to perform marriage of alleged detenue Poonam by taking money. Care-taker of Apna Ghar Orphanage was not in good health. The detenues got admission in Orphanage of the petitioner. On 10.08.2011, respondent no.3 (Protection Officer, Karnal) came to the petitioner's Orphanage along with 10-12 other persons and alleged that the alleged detenues were staying there illegally. Respondent no.5 was also there with respondent no.3. Respondents no.3 and 5 forcibly took away the alleged detenues with them. The petitioner could not find out the whereabouts of the alleged detenues. However, later on, the petitioner learnt that the detenues have been illegally and forcibly kept in Orphanage of respondent no.4 (a Trust) and from there, they would be taken by respondent no.5 to Bihar for marriage of detenue no.1 Poonam. The petitioner, therefore, sought production and release of the alleged detenues. Respondents no.3 to 5 are present in person. Respondents no.1 to 3 are represented by State counsel and respondent no.5 by his counsel. Reply on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy given to the opposite counsel. Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 3 Respondent no.5 has also brought with him his other daughter Sangeeta, who has since been married and is also having a young baby girl. Sangeeta states that she was got married by her father i.e. respondent no.5 without taking any money and she is residing happily in the matrimonial home. According to reply of respondents no.1 to 3, application was moved by respondent no.5 in Special Cell for Women and Children, Karnal alleging that his three daughters (alleged detenues) aged 14, 12 and 10 years were got admitted in Apna Ghar Society in Sector-9, Karnal because his wife i.e. mother of alleged detenues had expired and he i.e. respondent no.5 was unable to take proper care of his daughters. However, respondent no.5 learnt that Apna Ghar Society had been closed. He contacted Manav Dass @ Ravinder – Incharge of Apna Ghar Society, but Manav Dass @ Ravinder did not allow respondent no.5 to meet his daughters. In spite of efforts made by respondent no.5, with the help of his relatives and friends, Manav Dass did not allow respondent no.5 to see his daughters. Respondent no.5 suspected that Manav Dass was torturing his daughters mentally and physically. Respondent no.5 also approached Manav Dass for cancellation of admission of his three daughters from Apna Ghar Society. Respondent no.5 also affirmed affidavit dated 25.07.2011 to this effect, but Manav Dass – alleged Secretary of Apna Ghar Society, in spite of having the aforesaid affidavit of respondent no.5, did not release his daughters. Accordingly, Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 4 respondent no.3 – Protection Officer visited the house of Manav Dass to make inquiries. All the three daughters of respondent no.5 were produced before Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. Pursuant to his direction, they were also medically examined. Thereafter, on direction of Deputy Commissioner, respondent no.3 handed over the custody of the alleged three detenues to Monika Dais – In-charge of St. Mary Educational Charitable Society, Karnal on 09.08.2011, with direction to produce them before respondent no.3 on 10.08.2011. At the time of visit to the house of Manav Dass, it was also found by respondent no.3 that there was no other child living there except the three daughters of respondent no.5. It was also found that Apna Ghar Society was not in existence. The three daughters of respondent no.5 were found in the house of Manav Dass. Monika Dais stated that she is In-charge of Apna Ghar Society, where nine girls and ten boys were residing. Manav Dass @ Ravinder was Secretary of the said Society. Monika Dais suffered attack on 20.07.2011 and was admitted in a hospital. On account of it, nine children were sent to their respective homes and the remaining ten children were sent to the house of Manav Dass. Monika Dais returned after medical treatment on 28.07.2011 and recalled the nine children from their houses. Out of ten children, sent to Manav Dass, he sent back only seven to Monika Dais, whereas the remaining three i.e. alleged detenues were kept by Manav Dass in his house. Thereafter, the alleged detenues were sent to Sharadhanand Orphanage – respondent no.4 Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 5 after seeking order from Senior Superintendent of Police, Karnal. It was also found by respondent no.3 on inquiry that the petitioner had illegally detained the three daughters of respondent no.5. Respondent no.3 also requested Superintendent of Police, Karnal to take appropriate action against Manav Dass. The instant writ petition is counter-blast to the same. It may be mentioned that the instant writ petition on behalf of petitioner has been filed through its Secretary Ravinder @ Manav Dass. Respondent no.5 states that his three daughters i.e. alleged detenues are residing in Orphanage of respondent no.4 with his consent i.e. consent of respondent no.5 and are living happily there. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner, by filing the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition, has grossly abused the process of this Court. The petitioner stated the age of alleged detenue no.1 Poonam as 17 years, but did not even state the age of remaining two detenues in the writ petition. The petitioner also did not disclose that Manav Dass @ Ravinder was also Secretary of Apna Ghar Society, where alleged three detenues were earlier admitted. On the other hand, the petitioner has no right to detain the minor daughters of respondent no.5 against the wish of respondent no.5, who is their natural guardian. It is admitted even by counsel for the petitioner that all the three detenues are minor. The petitioner, it is prima facie apparent, wants to Crl. W. P. No. 1675 of 2011 6 exploit the alleged detenues as well as respondent no.5. The petitioner has falsely alleged that the alleged detenues have been illegally detained by respondents no.4 and 5. On the other hand, the shoe is on the other leg. It was the petitioner, who wanted to retain illegal custody of the alleged three detenues against the wishes of their father and guardian – respondent no.5. In view of what has been stated in the reply filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 and what is being stated by respondent no.5 in person in the Court, it is manifest that alleged detenues are not in illegal custody or detention of respondent no.4, but are living there with consent of their guardian and father – respondent no.5. This tendency of abusing Habeas Corpus writ jurisdiction of this Court has to be curbed with strong hand. The instant case is classical example of abuse of process of this Court by the petitioner. Accordingly, not only this Habeas Corpus writ petition has to be dismissed, but also the petitioner has to be subjected to heavy cost. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner's Secretary Ravinder @ Manav Dass with the Registry of this Court, within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. September 29, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE