Criminal Writ Petition No.1375 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1375 of 2011 Date of Decision : 20.07.2011 Meena Kumari .... Petitioner Versus Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh and another. .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. * * * * Present: Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rozi and her husband Mr. Dalip Kumar in person with counsel Mr. M. S. Uppal, Advocate. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Report of the Warrant Officer has been received and perused. Heard. Pursuant to report of the Warrant Officer, Rozi and her husband Dalip Kumar are present in person along with alleged detenue Anshu. The petitioner is also present in person. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. This is habeas corpus petition filed by Meena Kumari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking release of her minor son Anshu from illegal detention of respondent No.2 Ramesh Gora. Warrant Officer appointed by this Court has given his report. The alleged detenue was found in the custody of Rozi, who stated that she and her husband Dalip Kumar had adopted the said child from Ishika Bhardwaj and her husband Charanjit Criminal Writ Petition No.1375 of 2011 -2- Singh. Rozi and Dalip Kumar also made statements before the Warrant Officer undertaking to produce the alleged detenue in this Court and accordingly they have come to this Court along with the alleged detenue. Petitioner in the instant writ petition has alleged that the alleged detenue is her illegitimate son and she never gave the same in adoption. It is also alleged that respondent No.2 after administering her some intoxicating substance in drink, took her to Balmiki Mandir, where an aged old man unknown to the petitioner was shown as father of the detenue and some ceremony was performed on the pretext that it was necessary for getting birth certificate of the child. In nutshell, respondent No.2 has challenged the alleged adoption without stating that under the pretext of ceremony, the child was allegedly adopted. Rozi and Dalip Kumar who allegedly adopted the child were also not made party to the petition, nor Charanjeet Singh, the alleged aged old man, has been made party. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to implead them as party. However, disputed questions of fact arise for adjudication because the petitioner has alleged that the alleged ceremony was performed after intoxicating her, whereas Dalip and Rozi have stated that they have adopted the child. Said disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal writ petition is disposed of with liberty to either party to seek any relief by institution of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 20th July, 2011 'raj'