IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.964 of 2011 Subhash Mahato @ Subhash Chaudhari son of Sukai Mahto, resident of village- Manpur Tesrahiya, P.S. Bathwaria, District- West Champaran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah. 3. The Superintendent of Police, West Champaran at Motihari. 4.The S.H.O. Jogapatti (Nawalpur) Police Station, District- West Champaran 5. Joniya Devi w/o Duryodhan Choudhary, resident of village- Khalwa Tola Nawalpur, P.S. Jogapatti (Nawalpur),District- West Champaran. --------------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Brij Kishore Mishra. For the State : Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat,G.P. 13 and Mr.Binay Kumar. 2 27.9.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus for production of his alleged wife, namely, Fulmati Devi being the daughter of respondent no.5. In our view the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. From the pleadings, as made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner had eloped with the said girl Fulmati Devi. On 20.5.2011, respondents no.5 lodged Jogapatti (Nawalpur) P.S.Case no. 129 of 2011 under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, against the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that after elopement, on 25.6.2011 he solemnized marriage with Fulmati Devi under Special Marriage Act. Thereafter the petitioner and Fulmati Devi surfaced. The petitioner surrendered to judicial custody in respect of the aforesaid case and the police took custody of Fulmati Devi, whose statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 3.8.2011. It is stated that in her statement she has stated that she was a major and out of her own free - 2 - will, she has eloped with the petitioner and married and that her mother, respondent no.5, has lodged a false case. She further stated that she wants to live with her husband. Along with the statement she was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah (West Champaran) where the magistrate by his order dated 6.8.2011 passed an order saying therein that as Fulmati Devi was a major, she could go according to her will wherever she wants. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that as the investigating officer was in league with his alleged mother-in-law, the girl has been kept in illegal confinement somewhere. She is unable to unit with him and hence the writ petition. Here we may only refer to Sections 339 to 344 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 346 thereof. Those sections deal with wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement and wrongful confinement in secret. They are all cognizable offences. We then refer to Sections 97 and 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides search for persons wrongfully confined and power to compel restoration of abducted females. If what the petitioner’s submission is correct that his alleged wife is being wrongfully restraint/ wrongfully confined either at the behest of the investigating officer of the case or with his connivance or at the behest of the mother of the said girl then there is adequate provisions as aforesaid for the relief that petitioner seeks. Admittedly the petitioner has not made any complaint to any authority whatsoever in this regard. He has rushed straight to this Court, which in the facts - 3 - and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J) (Ashwani Kumar Singh,J)