CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Mohd. Rafiq vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 23 June 2011 · Citation: (2011) 06 RAJ CK 0004

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vineet Kothari, J · Narendra Kumar Jain, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 97
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5518 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 334 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The Petitioner by this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court with the case that he got married as per Muslim Rites with detenue, namely, Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta D/o Shanker Lal Prajapat (Respondent No. 4) on 29.05.2011, however, after marriage with the present Petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 lodged an FIR regarding missing of his daughter at Police Station Swaroopganj; and that he had taken forcibly his wife (Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta) with him. The Petitioner claims that after marriage with Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta, he is entitled for legal custody of detenue, Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta; and now she is in illegal custody of Respondent No. 4.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the Petitioner is ready to bear the cost of production of the said detenue in the Court to ascertain her wishes.

4.

Having considered the submissions made at bar by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that detenue, namely, Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta prima-facie cannot be said to be illegally detained by Respondent No. 4, Shanker Lal Prajapat, her own father. However, the Petitioner in any case has equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him viz. to approach the concerned Executive Magistrate u/s 97 of Code of Criminal Procedure Recently, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shanker Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil (Habeas Corpus) Writ Petition No. 5418/2011, decided on 17.06.2011) has taken a similar view, to which one of the us (Hon''ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain) was also member.

5.

In view of aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing habeas corpus writ and the Petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy, as aforesaid.

6.

In the result, the present habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly with aforesaid observations.