Niranjan Lal Sharma vs State of Raj.

Instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by father of the alleged detnue (Deepika), who, as per date of birth recorded in her school records is 06/09/1995, has indisputably attained the age of majority and certainly take decision of her own obviously with free will without any duress.

It has been alleged in the petition that the detenue is missing since 13/06/2014 and illegally abducted by respondent No. 7-Shahid Mansoori S/o. Deen Mohammed, resident of Mahuwa, District Dausa but initially MPR No. 13/2014 was registered at Police Station-Sodala, Jaipur City (South) on 18/06/2014 and when no efforts were made to recover the detenue, the petitioner was compelled to file instant petition.

After taking note of the submission made and as alleged in the petition, notices were issued to respondents No. 1 to 6 and it was made clear that if the detenue is recovered in the meanwhile, her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. be recorded before the ld. Magistrate and the statement so recorded be placed before the Court for perusal and at the same time, liberty was granted to the Investigating Officer to take further action thereafter in accordance with law.

When the matter came up before the Court on 19/09/2014, order passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in SB Cr. Writ Petition No. 127/2014 filed at the instance of the detenue-Deepika, was placed for perusal and the fact is that she herself filed criminal writ petition u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution seeking protection for herself and her alleged husband-Shahid @ Sonu as they are apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of those who are opposed to their marriage solemnized on 18/06/2014.

Taking note of her marriage certificate and the other documentary evidence placed for perusal before the ld. Single Judge of this Court, criminal writ petition that came to be disposed of vide order dt. 18/07/2014 and SHO, Police Station, Sodala, Jaipur was directed to ensure necessary vigil and that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the detenue and her husband-Shahid Mansoori and had a bona fide belief that family members of the detenue must be annoyed with the marriage. However, the ld. Single Judge has not determined validity of marriage of the detenue and obviously, it was open for the parties to raise their objection in appropriate proceedings available under the law.

Since the instant matter was posted for 26/09/2014, the detenue Deepika is produced before the Court today. It is informed to this Court that her statement has to be recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Magistrate as per the given date on 27/09/2014.

It is not disputed between the parties that the detenue-Deepika Shama has attained the age of majority as per her date of birth recorded in school records and after she is produced before the Court, we have also taken note of her wishes and she has made a statement before the Court that she is at present residing that her own free will with respondent No. 7-Shahid @ Sonu and at present she has a fetus of three months and further stated that she has not been abducted by respondent No. 7-Shahid @ Sonu and made a further request that since her family members are annoyed with their marriage, she needs police protection and further informs this Court that despite order of the Court dt. 18/07/2014 in criminal writ petition filed at her instance, adequate police protection has not been provided.

Mr. Anoop Dhand & Mr. Subhash Khandelwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, jointly submit that since the detenue has been abruptly produced before the Court, she must be under pressure and the statement made before the Court today, which has been noticed in the present facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be a statement with her free will and further submits that it will be in the interest of justice if the detenue is sent to ''Nari Niketan'' and after her statement being recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Magistrate, let the law may take its own course thereafter.

After taking note of the submission made, in our considered view, the detenue-Deepika, who has attained the age of majority it is open for her to stay at the place of her choice and as already observed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the SB Cr. Writ Petition No. 127/2014 vide order dt. 18/07/2014 that the detenue is staying with respondent No. 7-Shahid @ Sonu with her own free will and taking note of the statement made before us, at least, we can record that she is not under illegal custody or confinement of respondent No. 7-Shahid @ Sonu we make it clear that what is being observed by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and further action would be taken by the Investigating Officer after her statement is recorded before the ld. Magistrate u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. but taking note of the statement made by her before us, we do not find justification to send the detenue to ''Nari Niketan'', as prayed for by the petitioner.

Accordingly, in our view, the detenue is not in illegal custody or abducted by the respondent No. 7-Shahid @ Sonu and she is residing with him at her own free will and at least the present habeas corpus petition may not survive any further and it will be open for the Investigating Officer to take further steps after her statement being recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Magistrate.

The detenue (Deepika) is at liberty to stay at the place of her choice and at the same time, it is the bounden duty of the police authorities to provide adequate police protection to her and after her statement being recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Magistrate, let the Investigating Officer may take further steps in accordance with law.

We further make it clear that what is being observed by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the present habeas corpus petition and the ld. Magistrate or any other authority before whom other collateral proceedings are initiated/pending, may not influence/inhibit by the observations made herein above and may take their decision independently in accordance with law.

The habeas corpus petition, in the above terms, stands disposed of.