Hans Raj Gurjar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by so-called alleged husband of the detenue and his grievance is that his legally wedded wife, with whom marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2015, has been illegally detained by her parents and it has been prayed that she should be released from their custody and handed over to the petitioner.

In support of his contention that the detenue is his legally wedded wife, with whom marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2015, a certificate of Arya Samaj has been placed on record and there is no tangible evidence on record in addition thereto by which this court can draw an inference of their marriage being solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs which has to be registered under the Marriage Registration Act within 30 days of solemnization of marriage, which is always open for the Investigating Officer to examine in the pending inter se dispute going on between the parties.

The facts, which reveal from the record, are that on a written complaint made by father of the detenue that his minor daughter has left home to plough the agricultural fields and did not return back on 19.01.2015 and she has been illegally abducted by the respondent Nos. 6-9, FIR No. 5 Dt. 23.01.2015 came to be registered at Police Station Datwas, District Tonk for offence u/S. 363 and 366 IPC. The detenue was thereafter recovered and produced before the ld. Magistrate and father of the detenue Dev Narayan Gurjar and also the detenue moved separate applications for custody and the detenue prayed that she may be made free to stay at the place of her choice.

Both the applications came to be decided by the ld. Magistrate vide order Dt. 29.01.2015 and while rejecting the application filed by father of the detenue Dev Narayan Gurjar, the application of the detenue came to be allowed and taking note of the medical certificate regarding her age, which came on record, a prima facie view was expressed by the ld. Magistrate that the detenue has attained the age of majority, which is still open for the Investigating Officer to get her ossification test conducted for determination of her age for taking further action in reference to the FIR No. 5 Dt. 23.01.2015, taking note thereof the ld. Magistrate dismissed the application of father of the detenue and granted liberty to the detenue to stay at the place of her choice and also directed to grant adequate security to her.

The order Dt. 29.01.2015 passed by the ld. Magistrate came to be challenged by father of the detenue in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 967/2015 before this court and after she was released and made free to stay at the place of her choice vide order Dt. 29.01.2015, she was produced before the ld. Magistrate and her statement came to be recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. on 12.02.2015. However, in the statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C., she has shown her willingness to go with the petitioner and stated that she has left home with her own free will and presently residing with the petitioner and also stated that he has not committed anything wrong. In totality, she supported the present petitioner in her statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. but after S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 967/2015 came to be preferred, the ld. Single Judge of this court directed that let statement of the detenue be recorded and pursuant thereto, the detenue Rameshi @ Bachchi appeared before the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) and her statement came to be recorded on 04.03.2015 and at this stage i.e. in the statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Magistrate Dt. 12.02.2015 and the statement recorded on 04.03.2015 before the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this court, the detenue took a somersault inasmuch as both the statements, if read together, are contrary to each other.

We are not supposed to express any opinion at this stage as we are only supposed to examine as to whether the detenue is under illegal custody/detention, as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Habeas Corpus Petition but one thing is very clear that if such casual statements are being made, it is for the Investigating Officer to take appropriate action and if the statement is found to be false or a concocted statement has been recorded, certainly law must take its course and no one should be left free if he/she makes a false statement before the court.

Before us there is an FIR initially registered at the instance of father of the detenue No. 5/2015 Dt. 23.01.2015 at Police Station Datwas, District Tonk and at the same time the present petitioner has also registered FIR No. 12 Dt. 19.02.2015 at Police Station Datwas, District Tonk for offence u/S. 143, 447 and 365 IPC and at the same time there is another FIR registered at the instance of the complainant (relative of the detenue) No. 115 Dt. 25.03.2015 at Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for offence u/S. 143, 452, 379 and 354 IPC against the petitioner.

As regards the FIRs are concerned, the law may take its own course but taking note of order of the ld. Magistrate Dt. 29.01.2015 regarding custody of the detenue and her statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. Dt. 12.02.2015 and the statement recorded before the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this court Dt. 04.03.2015, at least no inference can be drawn that the detenue is in illegal custody of her own parents for which the instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed and as regards her custody is concerned, as there is already an order of the ld. Magistrate Dt. 29.01.2015 permitting the detenue to stay at the place of her choice, there is no need to pass any further order and since the detenue has been made free and granted liberty to stay at the place of her choice in compliance of order Dt. 29.01.2015 passed by the ld. Magistrate, she is presently residing with her own parents.

We do not find any substance, in the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, to support that the detenue has been illegally detained or in illegal custody of her own parents, from whom the present petitioner wants her to be released and take her custody, which, in our considered view, is not sustainable in law.

Consequently, the instant Habeas Corpus Petition is without substance and accordingly stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that what has been observed supra by this court is only for the purpose of disposal of the instant habeas corpus petition and neither it grants approval to the alleged marriage nor the allegations and count-allegations made by the petitioner and parents of the detenue and the Investigating Officer or the authority, in any other collateral proceedings, if pending before any court of law, may not be influenced/inhibited by the observations made by this court and shall be at liberty to take decision independently in accordance with law. However, we make it further clear that the detenue be provided adequate security and she is still at liberty to stay at the place of her choice.