Rajwinder Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 4

Sukhdev Singh father of petitioner No. 1, filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 380 of 2012 titled as Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab & Ors.

before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2012. The order dated 12.03.2012 passed by this Court, reads as under:

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus

directing the respondents to produce the detenue Rajwinder Kaur daughter of petitioner Sukhdev Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of village

Hetampura, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar.

Accordingly, notice of motion was issued vide order dated 23.2.2012 and respondents No. 4 to 6 were directed to be present in the Court along

with the alleged detenue-Rajwinder Kaur.

In pursuance to the same, the parties are present in the Court alongwith alleged detenue Rajwinder Kaur. Said Rajwinder Kaur got her statement

recorded. As per her statement, she is residing with Harjinder Singh son of Dilbagh Singh i.e. Respondent No. 4. It is further stated by her that she

married Harjinder Singh out of her own free will and she wants to continue to live with him in her matrimonial home.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the mother i.e. wife of the petitioner may be allowed to meet her daughter Rajwinder

kaur. Request was accepted and the mother i.e. wife of the petitioner was allowed to meet Rajwinder Kaur in the chamber.

After the said meeting, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Rajwinder Kaur did not wish to accompany them and was residing

with the private respondents out of her own free will, he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail of any other

alternative remedy, if any.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in terms of the order dated 12.03.2012 passed by this Court, the instant petition has

become infructuous and may be disposed of, as such.

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the instant petition

is ordered to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.