Sohan Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 94 of 2013

Application is allowed and Annexure P-4 is taken on record.

Crl. Writ Petition No. 68 of 2013

Sohan Singh and Gurjeet Kaur, the parents of Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo, alleged to have been detained in illegal custody by respondents No. 3 and 4, have brought this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to produce the minor detenue Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo and for registration of a criminal case against respondents No. 3 and 4 for an offence punishable under sections 363, 364, 365, 366 and 366-A IPC.

It is the case that Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo was born on 18.11.1996. She went to gurudwara on 31.12.2012 and did not return thereafter. The petitioners came to know from reliable sources that respondents No. 3 and 4 have enticed away Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo and have detained her forcibly.

In pursuance of the directions issued by this court vide order dated 22.1.2013, respondents No. 3 and 4 have brought Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo to the court in person. Stating her age to be 17 years and at present running in 18th year of her life, she has made the following statement:-

Stated that I have married with Panjab Singh on 3.1.2013 and I am living with him at Shahbad out of my own will. I do not want to accompany my father. I want to go with my husband Panjab Singh to my matrimonial home.

The detenue has claimed her age to be 17 years. She is stated to have married with Panjab Singh-respondent No. 3 and is staying with him out of her own will. She refused point blank to accompany her father and desired to go to the house of her husband Panjab Singh.

This statement on the part of Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo clearly resolves the issue raised by the petitioners. Rajwinder Kaur @ Rajjo is not in illegal confinement with respondents No. 3 and 4 and the petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus becomes infructuous.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has also prayed for registration of the case against respondents No. 3 and 4. In this regard, law has been clearly laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , where petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for registration of case are to be discouraged by the High Courts because the powers of the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. are held to be quite vast and are said to be covering this aspect. So, if the petitioners think that respondents No. 3 and 4 have committed any offence, they may approach the Magistrate concerned u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.