Jagdish vs The State of Rajasthan

This habeas corpus petition is preferred by Mr. Jagdish S/o Tulchha Ram, resident of Samdari, District Barmer, to have a direction to produce alleged detenue Ms. Anita Kumari before the court. As per the facts averred in the petition for writ, Ms. Anita Kumar, daughter of the petitioner, is minor, being 01.01.1999 her date of birth. Respondents Raju Ram S/o Lal Ram, Champa Lal S/o Hukma Ram, Mohan Lal S/o Ganesha Ram, Champa Lal S/o Chhoga Ram, Lala Ram S/o Mansa Ram and Smt. Hanja Devi W/o Lala Ram abducted Ms. Anita Kumari on 24.04.2014. A first information report was lodged at Police Station Samdari on 25.04.2014, but of no consequence. Necessary representations were also submitted to the Collector, Barmer and the Superintendent of Police, Barmer on 04.05.2014. The authorities concerned id not choose to act upon the representations, thus, this habeas corpus petition is preferred.

This court by the order dated 23.05.2014 directed learned counsel for the petitioner to supply a copy of the writ petition to learned Government Advocate enabling him to avail necessary instructions. In pursuance thereto, Mr. Amrit Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Balotara, has produced the corpus before us. Mr. Amrit Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police has also made available necessary documents relating to the investigation made on basis of the first information report lodged at the instance of the petitioner.

It is pointed out that Mr. Rajendra @ Raju Ram S/o Lala Ram, by caste Ghanchi, and Ms. Anita Kumari preferred a miscellaneous petition as per the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this court with assertion that they have already entered into a wedlock and therefore, necessary protection be provided to them being apprehending injury to their life by the petitioner and other family members.

In the miscellaneous petition aforesaid, on 20.05.2014, the Station House Officer, Police Station Samdari, District Barmer was directed to ensure that no harm by caused to the petitioners in the miscellaneous petition.

A statement made by Ms. Anita Kumari is also available on record, wherein she has shown her voluntary movement with Mr. Rajendra @ Raju Ram. It is also stated that the petitioner willingly engaged Ms. Anita Kumari for marriage with Rajendra @ Raju Ram, but subsequently, denied for the same, therefore, Ms. Anita decided to move with Rajendra @ Raju Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, while accepting the engagement of Raju Ram with Ms. Anita, states that she being a minor cannot be permitted to marry with any person.

True it is, a minor girl cannot enter into a wedlock, but in the instant matter, a medical opinion is available on record that discloses age of Ms. Anita in between 18-19 years. Ms. Anita is also produced before us and from her physic, we are satisfied that she is not minor.

Having considered the factual position noticed above, no further order is required to be passed. Ms. Anita Kumari is at liberty to move as per her own free will and wishes.

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.