Cr. W.P. No. 11 of 2010. 29.4.2010 Present: Mr. S.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surender Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. G.S.Chhahal counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 6. Respondent No.7 in person alongwith Ms. Nighat Parveen, who is present in person. This matter was taken in the earlier hours of the day when we had adjourned it for now to enable the petitioner and Ms. Nighat Parveen to talk for some time. They were allowed to remain together for more than three hours. We have separately recorded the statement of Ms. Nighat Parveen, who unequivocally stated that presently she is living with her own parents of her own free will and wants to continue living with them. She also stated that she had gone with petitioner Jagdish of her own free will and has no complaint against him. In view of the statement of Ms. Nighat Parveen, who is admittedly a major, no further orders are called for on the main issue involved in the writ petition. We are, however, deeply concerned with the manner in which the officials of the Chandigarh police came into Himachal Pradesh alongwith respondent No.7 Furkan Khan, father of Ms. Nighat Parveen and took her away from the house of the petitioner Jagdish. Even before us she has admitted that she was living with Jagdish of her own accord. She had not been abducted by him. Even as per the reply filed by respondents No. 5 and 6 only DDR has been recorded in the Police Station 39, Chandigarh to the effect that Ms. Nighat Parveen was missing. Later her father expressed an apprehension that she had gone with Jagdish, who intends to marry her. Cr. W.P. No. 11 of 2010. We fail to understand why the Chandigarh Police was in so much of hurry that it did not even attempt to inform the local police of Nalagarh/Baddi of their intention to visit the house of the petitioner. Once they visited the house of the petitioner and found Ms. Nighat Parveen in his house, the most the Chandigarh police could have done was to have reported the matter to the local police. They had no authority or jurisdiction to take away Ms. Nighat Parveen from Himachal Pradesh to Chandigarh. Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code entitles a Police Officer of a rank not below of that of Sub Inspector to request the Officer-in-charge of another Police Station to cause a search to be made in any place. Section 166(3) provides that only if there are reasons to believe that the delay occasioned by making a request envisaged under Section 166(1) might result in the evidence of the commission of an offence being concealed or destroyed that it would be lawful for the officer-in- charge of a police station not having jurisdiction to search any place in the limits of another police station. No such reasons have been recorded by the police and in fact even the complaint of the father of the girl did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence since all that was stated therein was that he suspected that his daughter had gone with Jagdish who intends to marry her. Normally, we would have taken a more serious view of the matter but Mr. G.S.Chhahal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6 has fairly conceded before us that he has already advised his clients to be careful in future and not to repeat this sort of behaviour. The police officials, respondents No.5 and 6, namely, SHO Janak Singh, and ASI Jogider Singh, respectively, have appeared before us and have tendered their unqualified apology, which we have accepted. Therefore, we close the matter but direct these two Cr. W.P. No. 11 of 2010. officials, namely, SHO Janak Singh, and ASI Jogider Singh, not to repeat such behavior in future. If any such incident is brought to our notice in future we shall take strict action. We may make it clear that our observations here-in-above in respect of these two officials are limited to this case and in case the local police or the petitioner or any other person wants to initiate legal proceedings against these two officials they shall be free to do so and these observations shall not come in their way. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 29th April, 2010 ( Rajiv Sharma) ™ Judge.