IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.779 of 2011 Amardeep Kumar, S/o Sri Arbind Kumar Mandal, R/o Mohalla-Goshala Gali, P.O.+P.S.+District-Lakhisarai, present address:-C/o Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mohalla-Khemani Chak, Sheo Mandir, P.S.-Ram Krishna Nagar, District.- Patna. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai. 6. The Officer-in-charge, Lakhisarai Police Station, Lakhisarai. 7. Pawan Singh, S/o name not known to the petitioner, Sub-inspector, Lakhisarai, P.S.-Lakhisarai. ………….Respondents 1st Set. 8. Jay Prakash Drolia, S/o name not known to the petitioner. 9. Sumit Kumar @ Sonu, S/o Sri Jay Prakash Drolia. Both R/o Mohalla-Naya Bazar, ICICI Bank, P.O.+P.S.+District- Lakhisarai. ……………Respondent 2nd Set. 10. Neha Kumari, D/o Sri Jay Prakash Drolia, R/o Mohalla-Naya Bazar, ICICI Bank, P.O.+ P.S.+ District-Lakhisarai. …………..Respondent 3rd Set. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to A.G. ----------- 2. 09.08.2011 The petitioner claims that he and respondent No. 10 i.e. Neha Kumari, who happens to be daughter of Sri Jay Prakash Drolia respondent No. 9, both being adults had got married out of their own free will in Arya Samaj Mandir, New Delhi and in support thereof, a marriage certificate is also annexed. He submits that upon return from Delhi, where they were residing, when the girl went to her parents, she has now been illegally confined there and she is not being permitted to go out of the house nor communicate with the petitioner. As such, he is being kept in illegal confinement, hence this writ of Habeas Corpus. In our view, even if one accepts what the petitioner says 2 he must ordinarily first exhaust the remedy, that is, available to him under Sections 97 and 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are quoted hereunder:- 97. Search for persons wrongfully confined-“If any District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class has reason to believe that any person is confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, he may issue a search-warrant, and the person to whom such warrant is directed may search for the person so confined; and such search shall be made in accordance therewith, and the person, if found, shall be immediately taken before a Magistrate, who shall make such order as in the circumstances of the case seems proper.” 98. Power to compel restoration of abducted females- “Upon complaint made on oath of the abduction or unlawful detention of a woman, or a female child under the age of eighteen years, for any unlawful purpose, a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class may make an order for the immediate restoration of such woman to her liberty, or of such female child to her husband, parent, guardian or other person having the lawful charge of such child, and may compel compliance with such order, using such force as may be necessary.” We may also refer to Section 339 onwards of the Indian Penal Code in this regards, which is quoted hereunder: 339. Wrongful restraint-“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that 3 person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.” Lastly, we may also refer to section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This is for restitution of conjugal right. Once, we pointed out this, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he and respondent no. 10, the girl in question have been writing to the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, but, no action is being taken by them. The petitioner apprehends that the parents or relations of respondent no. 10 may resort to honour killing as an extreme measure, as this is an inter-caste marriage not acceptable to them. We do not express any opinion to this regard, but we direct the respondents, Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Lakhisarai to enquire into the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and to ensure the safety and lawful custody of respondent no. 10 at the earliest, before any serious damage can be done. The Collector and Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai would act on basis of certified copy of order of this Court as soon as the same produced before them and take necessary steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sanjeet/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)