IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.450 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 27, 2009 Gurmeet Singh ...........Petitioner Versus SSP, Jalandhar and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.R.S.Mamli,Advocate for respondent No.5 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing the respondents (especially respondents No. 5 and 6) to produce the detenue Ms. Navdeep Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, who is in their illegal custody. Respondent No.5 has filed the written statement wherein the marriage certificate of Navdeep Kaur and Satnam Singh has been placed on record. Navdeep Kaur and Satnam Singh have filed Crl.Misc. No. 7855-M of 2009 seeking protection of their lives and liberty. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2009. The last two paragraphs of the said order reads as under:- “Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. It is stated by petitioner No.1 that she has Criminal Writ Petition No.450 of 2009 -2- solemnized her marriage with petitioner No.2 of her own free will and desire and without any kind of pressure or undue influence. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 that in case, the petitioners approach any of them setting out their grievances as have been made in the present petition the same shall be duly considered and looked into by them independently and in accordance with law.” In these circumstances, it is evident that Navdeep Kaur has performed marriage with Satnam Singh of her own free will and is living with him. Respondent No.5 is father of Satnam Singh- respondent No.6. Since Navdeep Kaur and respondent No.6 have performed marriage, Navdeep Kaur cannot be said to be in illegal custody of respondents No.5 and 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no further interference is called for. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 27, 2009 arya