JUDGMENT R. S. Thakur, J. — This criminal writ petition was instituted by Ganga Singh in this Court on March 14, 1988, for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of respondent No. 3 (Ranjna Negi) alongwith her child against her father, respondent No. 2, (Ranjit Singh Chandel) and the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The averments in the petition are that prior to November 1986 both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were studying in the Himachal Pradesh University in L. L. B. and M. A. classes respectively and they then decided to enter into a wedlock and the marriage was thus solemnised in accordance with the Hindu rites in the temple of SANATAM DHARAM at Simla on October 11, 1986. The marriage was duly registered with the Registrar of Marriages on December 15, 1986 and a copy of the registration certificate is at Annexure PI. Subsequent to the marriage, however, respondent No. 2 filed a criminal writ petition No. 28 of 1986 in this Court wherein he had alleged that the petitioner and his other friends belonging to the Students Federation of India (for short ‘S.F.I.) have kept respondent No. 3 in unlawful confinement so as to force her to marry the petitioner against her will and that a writ of habeas corpus be issued for her production in the Court. 3. During the course of the proceedings in that writ petition, however, when it was proved that respondent No. 3 had entered into matrimonial relations with the petitioner of her own free will, without any force or coercion from any quarter, which she was competent to do being above the age of 18 years, respondent No. 2 withdrew from the prosecution of that petition and the notice therein was discharged. Thereafter while the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were living together at Simla, respondent No. 3 became pregnant by the petitioner in April 1987. Be it stated that both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 have their parental houses in Kullu District. Respondent No. 2 is having his residential house at Bashang and the petitioner at Chhatan Seri at a distance of 8/9 Kms. from Bashang. 4. As this marriage was against the wishes of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 abstained from going to her parents house after the marriage and was constantly living with the petitioner at Simla. Respondent No. 2 is having his residential house at Bashang and the petitioner at Chhatan Seri at a distance of 8/9 Kms. from Bashang. 4. As this marriage was against the wishes of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 abstained from going to her parents house after the marriage and was constantly living with the petitioner at Simla. Sometime in the first week of November (sic.) October, 1987 the petitioner took respondent No. 3 to his parental house at Chhatan Seri (Kullu) when she was in advance stage of pregnancy. On October 20, 1987 respondent No. 3 went to the Health Care Centre at Kullu for check up and obtained a pre-pregnancy Card from there so that she could have regular check up in this behalf and she was visiting the said Health Centre thereafter regularly for such check up. 5. On January 5, 1988, she (respondent No.3) had gone for similar check up to Kullu in the company of her friend Chander Kanta and as they were returning home after the check up in the evening, respondent No. 2 met her and took her to his house. At that time the petitioner was at Simla. When he went home and made enquiries in this behalf, however, he found that respondent No. 2 had detained respondent No. 3 at his house at Bashang. He then sought help of the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Banchi to prevail upon the respondent No. 2 to send respondent No. 3 to the matrimonial home but in vain. He then on January 11, 1988 filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, against respondent No. 2 to the effect that respondent No. 3 was being kept in unlawful confinement by respondent No. 2 and that her custody be handed over to him and on this respondent No. 2 on his own produced respondent No. 3 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and got her statement recorded to the effect that she was voluntarily staying with her parents and would return to the matrimonial home in a few days and she also at that time assured the petitioner that she had made a statement so that respondent No. 2 may not be harassed by the police and that she would return to the matrimonial home within a week. That very day when the petitioner and his father, brother and uncle were returning home from Kullu, the maternal uncle of respondent No. 3, with the help of some local goondas, way-laid them and gave them beatings and held out a threat that whenever respondent No. 3 will give birth to a child, it will be done away with. The petitioner then lodged a report in the police station Kullu in this behalf. 6. The petitioner further averred that thereafter all attempts by the petitioner to establish contact with respondent No. 3 were foiled by respondent No. 2 and nothing was known about the whereabouts of respondent No. 3 and also whether she had delivered a child or not and that there was reasonable apprehension in his mind that the lives of respondent No. 3 and the child were in danger and hence the writ petition with a prayer to issue appropriate writ/direction to respondent No. 2 to product the body of respondent No. 3 and that of the child she has delivered and handover their custody to the petitioner. 7. This Court then vide its order dated March 23, 1988 directed respondent No. 2 to produce the third respondent before the Court on March 29, 1988. The second respondent before the Court on March 29, 1988. The second respondent, however, failed to produce the third respondent on March 28, 1988 although he appeared through Mr, K. S. Patyal, and the case was then adjourned to March 30, 1988. -Even on the latter date, how ever, the second respondent failed to comply with the orders of the Court regarding the production of third respondent. This Court then ordered the issuance of a warrant for the production of the third respondent returnable on April 4, 1988 and also a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 500 against the second respondent to secure his presence in the Court on the same day, to be executed by a Warrant Officer not lower in rank than the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Simla. 8. Meanwhile, it appears that on March 31, 1988, the second respondent moved an application dated March 30, 1988, presented on his behalf by his counsel requesting the Registrar of this Court that the accompanying application being of urgent nature be listed before the Division Bench concerned at an early possible date. 8. Meanwhile, it appears that on March 31, 1988, the second respondent moved an application dated March 30, 1988, presented on his behalf by his counsel requesting the Registrar of this Court that the accompanying application being of urgent nature be listed before the Division Bench concerned at an early possible date. In the said accompanying application, the second respondent averred that he attended the Court on March 29, 1988 and informed the Court that respondent No. 3 being sick could not be produced in the Court and the Court then directed that a medical certificate in this behalf be produced on March 30, 1988, that he then returned to Kullu where he reached late and next morning at about 10 or 11 a. m. he obtained the medical certificate and then came to Simla in a taxi but could not attend the Court in time as the agitating N. G. Os. bad blocked the road at 3.45 p. m. near Vidhan Sabha building, Simla, and was able to reach the High Court after 4 p. m. and then handed over the medical certificate to the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in the Registry but by that time the warrant for the production of third respondent had been issued by the Court It was, therefore, requested vide that application that the said warrant be not issued or it" issued the same be called back. It was further requested that as rest had been prescribed for the third respondent vide the said medical certificate upto April 7, 1988, the writ petition be listed for hearing some time after April 7, 1988 so that the third respondent could be produced in the Court (see Cr. M. P. No. 36 of 1988). 9. The order-sheet of this Court in the proceedings, however, reveals that the second and third respondents were produced in the Court in due execution of the warrants issued on March 30, 1988. The second respondent then moved a Cr. M. P. No. 38 of 1988 tendering unconditional apology for not producing the third respondent on March 29, 1988 or March 30, 1988. The second respondent then moved a Cr. M. P. No. 38 of 1988 tendering unconditional apology for not producing the third respondent on March 29, 1988 or March 30, 1988. The third respondent was then questioned by the Court in Chamber and formed an opinion that she/should be left in the care and custody of an out side agency for a brief period in order to enable her to make a statement to be recorded in the course of these proceedings. The Court thus ordered the lodgment of the third respondent in the State Home for Women at Mashobra till the next day with the direction that no outsider should be allowed to meet her. She was then produced on the next day, that is April 5, 1988 in the Court when she stated that she was taken to and brought from the State Home for Women from Mashobra by Mrs. Veena Thakur, an employee of this Court, and that during her stay over there no outsider was allowed to meet her. To a question whether she wanted to make her statement in Chamber or in open Court, she opted for the latter course and made a statement in the Court after she was administered oath. 10. During the course of her statement in the Court she came out with startling facts. She stated that she had voluntarily married the petitioner on October 11, 1986 in a temple at Simla. Thereafter her father moved a habeas corpus petition in this Court as a result whereof she was brought to the Court and was questioned in the Chamber when she orally stated to the Court that she had married Ganga Singh (petitioner herein) of her own volition and was living with him. After that marriage she continued living with the present petitioner in Simla as well as in his native village Chhatan Sen in District Kullu where the father of her husband has his residential house and lived there with his family. During her co-habitation with her husband she became pregnant in April, 1987 and during her stay at Simla after this pregnancy she used to get herself medically checked up in Kamla Nehru Hospital at Simla. During her co-habitation with her husband she became pregnant in April, 1987 and during her stay at Simla after this pregnancy she used to get herself medically checked up in Kamla Nehru Hospital at Simla. Later on she went to the native place of her husband at Chhatan Seri and from there she started attending the Health Centre in Civil Hospital at Kullu for her medical check up and at no stage of this pregnancy she was told by the medical people that there was any likelihood of any complication at the time of delivery. 11. She further stated that on January 5, 1988, she went for the usual medical check up in the Health Centre at Kullu with her friend Chander Kanta of her village in a car of a family friend, named, Prem Singh of village Raison near Chhatan Seri. After this check up some time in the evening said Prem Singh dropped her and Chander Kanta in Akhara Bazar for shopping and told them that he would pick them up later on after getting his car checked in a workshop for minor repairs. During the course of shopping, when at one time she came out of a shop, the second respondent met her and told her that her mother was sick and wanted to see her and that she should come with him to his house at Village Bashang. She accordingly accompanied the second respondent to Bashang after leaving a message with Chander Kanta for said Prem Singh to pick her up from village Bashang. Said Prem Singh and Chander Kanta then came in the car to village Bashang after about an hour of her arrival at Bashang but the second respondent sent them away saying that she would stay back at Bashang for another 4/5 days. Meanwhile the second respondent assured her that he would patch up with the parents of the petitioner and put on end to the strained relations between the two families which had persisted ever since she had married the petitioner. The petitioner, according to her, at that time was at Simla. 12. Said Prem Singh again came to village Bashang 4 or 5 days later to take her back to village Chhatan Seri. The second respondent however, did not permit him to meet her and sent him back on the pretext that she was not at home. The petitioner, according to her, at that time was at Simla. 12. Said Prem Singh again came to village Bashang 4 or 5 days later to take her back to village Chhatan Seri. The second respondent however, did not permit him to meet her and sent him back on the pretext that she was not at home. Her husband then instituted the proceedings in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kullu a few days thereafter and she was then taken to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement. Before she was taken to the Court, however, the second respondent and her maternal uncle, Dinesh Sen, who is also resident of the same village Bashang, told her that they would effect a compromise with her husband and in-laws and that, therefore, she should make a statement in the Court to the effect that she was staying at the house of second respondent of her own free will. Before she actually made a statement inside the Court, she met her husband, the petitioner, outside the Court and apprised him of what her father and uncle had told her and the petitioner then agreed that she should make such a statement and also that in such a situation she could even stay at the house of the second respondent for some more time and thus after making the desired statement before the S.D.M. she again went back to her parental house at Bashang. Afterwards her maternal uncle Dinesh Sen, however, told her that when after the aforesaid hearing in the Court, the petitioner and his other family members were returning home, he (Dinesh Sen) and his friend intercepted them on the way and gave them beating. He further told her that on account of this incident, since the atmosphere at Kullu had become tense, she should not have her delivery in Kullu and also in view of her weak health, it would be better if her delivery took place at Chandigarh. 13. Thus on January 17, 1988, she was taken to Chandigarh by the second respondent and her maternal Uncle Dinesh Sen in a taxi. 13. Thus on January 17, 1988, she was taken to Chandigarh by the second respondent and her maternal Uncle Dinesh Sen in a taxi. However, before leaving for Chandigarh said Dinesh Sen obtained her signatures on three blank papers under the pretext that they might be required to file application(s) on her behalf in connection with the proceedings the petitioner had instituted in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Kullu. On the next day she was taken to a Nursing Home named Kamal Nursing Home in Candigarh where she was checked up by a lady doctor who there after advised that she should be admitted in the Nursing Home. The second respondent and said Dinesh Sen, however, did not agree and instead took her to Shanti Dan Charity Home. At the said Charity Home the second respondent and Dinesh Sen had some talk with the Incharge over- there which was beyond her hearing and thereafter they left the Charity Home leaving her along overthere. She then came to know from the staff of the Charity Home that the second respondent and Dinesh Sen had given them to understand that she was an unmarried girl who had become pregnant and that her child after its delivery would be given up to the said Charity Home. She, however, denied this and told them that she was a married woman and had not agreed to give her child to the Charity Home. Said nurses then again called the second respondent and Dinesh Sen to the Charity Home and they both compelled her to agree to give away the child to that Institution after she delivered the same. The officials of the said Charity Home then insisted that they would accept the child in the Home only in case she agreed to give an agreement in writing to that effect. She, however, refused to sign any such agreement in that Charity Home. Said Dinesh Sen then took out all those blank signed papers which he had obtained from her at Kullu before leaving for Chandigarh and her father wrote in his own hand on one of the said signed blank papers that she was unmarried and, therefore, wanted to give her child after its birth to the said Institution and this was done despite her protest(s) and he then gave that paper to one of the four or five staff nurses overthere. 14. 14. Thereafter she was got admitted in the General Hospital at Chandigarh on the same day at about 5 p. m. at the instance of Charity Home. Two nurses/attendants from the Charity Home had accompanied her to the hospital. After she was admitted in the Hospital she enquired from the lady doctor Incharge of her ward as to whether her delivery was imminent to which she replied that it was not so and it was likely to take yet some more time. She then left the hospital premises and went to the residence of the Director General of Police, Chandigarh, Mr. Ribeiro where she met one Sh. Prem Singh, Incharge of Security. She then narrated her difficulties to said Prem Singh, namely, that the second respondent and said Dinesh Sen were conspiring to give her child which she was about to deliver to the Charity Home on the false representation that she was unmarried, whereas she was married to the petitioner, and requested him to help her in the matter and also inform her husband, the petitioner, at Simla, in this behalf. Said Prem Singh then tried to contract the petitioner at Simla on the telephone but in vain. He, however, informed the police station in sector 23, Chandigarh, in this behalf as a result of which a police officer came in a car from the said police station and after hearing her about her problems, he took her to the police station where again she narrated her problems to the Incharge of the Police Station whose surname was Walia. Said Walia then contacted the said Charity Home on phone when he was assured by the staff overthere that they would help her in the delivery process but would not accept the child in the Charity Home as she was a duly married lady. She also informed said Walia about the written agreement that was with the Charity Home with regard to the handing over of her child, to be born, to the Charity Home. Said Walia then took her to the Charity Home and then took into his possession the agreement which the second respondent had prepared and handed over to them on her previously signed paper. Said Walia then took her to the Charity Home and then took into his possession the agreement which the second respondent had prepared and handed over to them on her previously signed paper. Thereafter the Charity Home staff took her to the General Hospital, Chandigarh, where she also got the record corrected to the effect that she was a married lady and the petitioner Ganga Singh was her husband. She delivered a male child in the said hospital on the same day, that is, on January 18 1988 at 11.30 p. m. 15. Then on the next morning, that is January 19, 1988, at about 10 a. m. she again went in a rickshaw to the house of Mr. Ribeiro and again met the security Officer Sh. Prem Singh who told her that he had been able to contact Simla through telephone but her husband was not there and a relation of his, one Puran Chand Negi, informed him that her husband had gone to Kullu. Said Prem Singh then also contacted Dr. Mrs. Dhillon and Dr. Miss Sarin of the General Hospital where she was admitted, on phone and told them that she should not be discharged from the said hospital till her in-laws arrived. In the afternoon of the same day, the second respondent and said Dinesh Sen visited her in the hospital and told her that they would look after her and take her back to Kullu only in case she agreed to leave the child behind in the Charity Home and that in case she did not agree, she would be left to her fate overthere and when she refused to agree, they left the hospital. 16. They again met her in the hospital on the next day, that is, January 20, 1988 and told her that they had decided that she would not be compelled to part with her child and they would take her back to Kullu along- with the child and on this assurance, she left the hospital and went with them and thus left Chandigarh on the same day and came straight to Mandi by a taxi and arrived at Mandi at about 10 or 11 p. m. and stayed in tourist lodge near the bus-stand. 17. 17. On the next day, that is, January 21, 1988, the second respondent and Dinesh Sen then took her to the house of her fathers sister at Village Gohar in Mandi District and after leaving her at her house they both left Gohar for Kullu after telling her that she would be staying at Gohar till she was completely recovered. She thus stayed at the house of her parental aunt, Mrs. Shakuntla Paul, at Gohar till February 5, 1988 but during this period said Shakuntla Paul did not allow her to establish any contact with her husband, the petitioner In fact she was kept confined to the house and no one was allowed to meet her nor was she allowed any opportunity to even write a letter to anybody. 18. On February 5, 1988, her father and said Dinesh Sen again come to the house of Shakuntla Paul at Gohar and started coercing and threatening her to go with them to Chandigarh and leave the child in the Shanti Dan Charity Home. Her pertinent statement has been recordedin her own words as follows:— "They told me that neither you will be allowed to go to your in-laws nor you will be allowed to meet your husband and nor will this child be allowed to remain with you". 19. On the next day, that is, February 6, 1988, she was again taken to Chandigarh by the second respondent and Dinesh Sen in a taxi and they went straight to Shanti Dan Charity Home where they found at that time the Head of the Institute, Sister Prasana, present overthere. The second respondent and Dinesh Sen then talked something to said Sister Prasana which was not audible to her. Said Sister Prasana then told her that if she wanted to give the child to the Institute, she will have to fill in a form stating the cause for abandoning the child. She then told Sister Prasana that she would leave her child in the Institute on a condition that she would be allowed to meet the child as and when she desired and that the child would not be given to anyone and this condition she bad set forth with an idea that she would reclaim the child after she met her husband, the petitioner. She even filled in a form wherein she stated that she wanted to leave the child in the Institute as she intended to study further but sister Prasana refused to accept the child on such a condition and insisted that the child would be taken in the Institute only in case she would give in writing that she was an unmarried mother. She, however, refused to give such a statement in writing in the proforma which was given to her afresh but when the second respondent and said Dinesh Sen compelled her to fill up the form in the desired manner, she had to do so and signed it. After this was done, sister Prasanna told her that she would not be allowed to meet the child and the child would be given to someone in a fortnight and thereafter she was again taken back to her parental house in village Bashang after the child was given to the said Institute. At Bashang she was kept confined to the residential house of her parents and was not allowed to move about or meet anybody nor was she given an opportunity to correspond with anyone. So much so that when three weeks ago two of her friends Bharti Katoch and Kamla came to meet her at her parental house, though they were allowed to meet her, but this meeting took place under-surveillance and without any privacy and as such she could not apprise her friends about her plight. 20. She further stated that five or six days prior to her instant statement in the Court, when she had no knowledge about the present habeas- corpus petition, she was taken by the second respondent and Dinesh Sen to the Civil Hospital at Kullu and a doctor present overthere gave her a blank proforma to sign without medically examining her which she refused to sign till it was filled up The said doctor then filled in the blanks in the proforma certificate and recorded the ailment of which she was supposed to be suffering, which was not legible to her, without her being examined by that doctor. She was, vide the said certificate, prescribed rest upto April 7, 1988. She was, vide the said certificate, prescribed rest upto April 7, 1988. It was that doctor who then disclosed to her at that time that the medical certificate was required to be issued since she could not be produced m the court in compliance with a notice issued in the instant proceedings and only then she came to know about the pendency of the present habeas- corpus petition and thereafter she was again taken back to her parental house. She identified the certificate Ex. C-l as the one which the doctor in the hospital at Kullu had issued though without examining her. She was then shown her affidavit dated March 24, 1988 (R-3^ filed in the present proceedings stating, inter alia, that she did not want to stay with her husband and that she wanted to be with her parents till she recouped. She admitted that this affidavit bore her signature but denied that she had sworn this type of affidavit before the Oath Commissioner Kullu or any of the other authorities and she was of the belief that this affidavit had been trans cribed on one of the blank papers on which her signatures were obtained by Dinesh Sen before she was taken to Chandigarh for delivery. 21. She further stated that she did not know whether any warrant was issued for securing her presence in the Court in the course of these proceedings but she was brought to Simla on April 3, 1988 by a taxi when her father, the second respondent and Dinesh Sen and her maternal aunt, Mrs. Sunil Chandra Chandel accompanied her in that taxi and they all stayed in the Apsra Guest House, Simla. She added that before she was brought to the Court, said Dinesh Sen had asked her to state to the Court that she had aborted the child and that she was living in her parental house of her own free will and that she did not wish to go and stay with her husband. She also stated that she held Masters Degree in Political Science— which she passed last year. She also stated that she held Masters Degree in Political Science— which she passed last year. She expressed her desire to go and live with her husband and also that her child be given back to her and that whatever she had given in writing about the child was not of her own free will but she did so under compulsion exercised upon her, as stated earlier. 22. On being cross-examined by Shri K. S. Patyal, Advocate, counsel for the second respondent, she stated that upto graduation she had studied at Kullu while living in her parental house at Bashang and the house of her maternal uncle Dinesh Sen was also in the same village at a distance of 5 to 10 minutes walk from her parental bouse. She did her Post-Graduation Course from the Himachal Pradesh University at Simla and obtained the Post-Graduate Degree in the third division and got married while she was still prosecuting Post-Graduate Degree Course. She admitted that she was an active worker of S.F.I, but did not know whether that body had anything to do with the C. P. I or C. P. I. (M). She further stated that aforesaid Kamla and Bhanti Katoch were her class-mates even in the college at Kullu. She also stated that she could not inform anybody by means of correspondence about her confinement in her parental house as she was not allowed any opportunity to do so. She denied that she had written any letter to her parents while living with her in-laws expressing her desire to come and stay in her parental house. She admitted that when on January 5. 19^8 the second respondent took her to his house at village Bashang, she had found that her mother was really sick and thereafter she was staying with her parents of her own free will till she was taken to Chandigarh. According to her there- was ill-feeling between her parents and her in-laws eversince she married the petitioner as this was against the wishes of her father and they stopped having any contact with her after her marriage. According to her there- was ill-feeling between her parents and her in-laws eversince she married the petitioner as this was against the wishes of her father and they stopped having any contact with her after her marriage. In fact the very day on which previous Habeas-corpus proceedings were disposed of, the second respondent and Dinesh Sen who were present in the court told her that they would have nothing to do with her in future and on account of this she never tried to establish any contract with them and in these circumstances she believed what the second respondent told her that he would patch up with her in-laws. She denied that she had complained to one Charan Singh of Span Motel at Katrain that she was being maltreated in her matrimonial home. She admitted that said Dinesh Sen had met her while she was in her matrimonial home but denied that he had come there in response to her message or that any altercation took place between him and her father-in-law or she cried before said Dinesh Sen and requested him to take her to her parental house. She admitted that she and her husband were students in the University and they were workers of the S. F. I. She denied that her husband and his co-workers had pressurised her to abort the child and that in order to avoid this pressure she went to her parental house and for that very reason she did not deliver the child at Kullu and persuaded her parents to take her to Chandigarh for delivery. She also denied that after the delivery at Chandigarh she was asked by the second respondent to go and join her husband with the child but she declined to do so and that since she did not want to go to Kullu alongwith the child, she expressed her desire to live at Gohar with her paternal aunt. She also denied that while she was living at Gohar the petitioner went to her in the company of 15 to 20 persons with a view to snatching away the child from her. She also denied that while she was living at Gohar the petitioner went to her in the company of 15 to 20 persons with a view to snatching away the child from her. She also denied the suggestion that she had voluntarily agreed to go to Chandigarh to leave the child in the Institute lest her husband and his companions should snatch away the child from her and kill the child and that she had thus signed the necessary document(s) at the said Institute of her own will. She asserted that she was rather apprehensive that the child might be killed by the second respondent and Dinesh Sen and that she signed the requisite documents at the time of giving the child over to the Institute under the pressure of second respondent and Dinesh Sen. To a question as to why she did not complain again to Prem Singh, the Incharge Security, at the residence of Mr. Ribeiro, when she was forced to part with the child, she replied that she was not being permitted to go anywhere alone at that time. She denied the suggestion that the medical certificate was issued by the doctor in the hospital at Kullu after he had thoroughly examined her. She also denied that she had gone to the Oath Commissioner and solemnly affirmed the contents of affidavit before him. She also denied that she had prepared the affidavit as she had told her father that she was not prepared to appear in the Court and to face the workers of Students Federation of India there. She was shown a photostat copy of letter dated November 13, 1986, and she admitted that she had written the letter, of which it was a photostat copy, to her mother. She (voluntarily) explained the circumstances under which she wrote this letter, namely, that at the time when she wrote the same, the second respondent and Dinesh Sen had met her and told her that though they had reconciled to her marriage with the petitioner, but her mother being a heart patient was likely to receive shock in case she came to know about the marriage and it was on account of this that she wrote this letter which was false. 23. Meanwhile Cr. 23. Meanwhile Cr. M. P. No. 39 of 1988 was moved on behalf of the petitioner whereby the respondents No. 4, (Shanti Dan Charity Home, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh through Sister Prasanna), No. 5 Sister Prasanna, Chairman, Shanti Dan Charity Home, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh) and No. 6 (Dinesh Sen S/o. Shri Beli Ram, R/o. Bashang, Tehsil and District Kullu, H. P.) were sought to be added as respondents in the main writ petition and they were accordingly added vide order dated April 7, 1988. 24. The petitioner then moved Cr. M. P. No. 40 of 1988 whereby the Court was requested to issue warrant against respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to produce the body of the child born to respondent No. 3 and wrongfully given over to Shanti Dan Charity Home at Chandigarh which application was allowed and the Court accordingly issued a warrant in this behalf on April 7, 1988 to be executed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Simla for production of the child on April 8, 1988 at 2 p. m. The child was accordingly produced by the fifth respondent in the Court The child was then handed over to respondent No. 3, who had meanwhile," started living with the petitioner by then of her free will categorically Repressed in the Court on April 17, 3988, on an undertaking to produce the child in the Court whenever ordered during the pendency of these proceedings. 25. The statement of Sister Parsanna and other staff members of the fourth respondent were also recorded. During the course of her statement Sister Parsanna produced and placed on record the following documents: 1. A declaration for a child given to the missionaries of Charity, dated February 11, 1988. (C-2). 2. A declaration dated January 18, 1988 by one PL S. Chandel, father of Kumari Ranjna to the effect that he had brought his daughter to Chandigarh for the delivery (illicit) and that he and his daughter do not want to keep the child-to-be-born with them and that they want to hand over the child to the Missionaries of Charity. (C-3). 3. (C-3). 3. A declaration made on Himachal Pradesh Judicial Paper on January 18, 1988 by Kumari Ranjna, daughter of Ranjit Singh Chandel, to the effect that while studying in the Himachal Pradesh University at Simla she developed illicit relations with one Ganga Singh Negi, a student of the Himachal Pradesh University, and that she was pregnant and that of her own desire she wanted to give the child to the Missionaries of Charity. (C-4). These documents were exhibited as C-2, C-3 and C-4 respectively. 26. Sister Parsanna stated in the course of her statement recorded in the Court that the document Ex. C-2 was written by the third respondent herself and at that time, besides her, her father and a person who was introduced to her as the maternal uncle of Ranjna were present. One other lady who was introduced to her as her sister was also present and that the father of Ranjna had signed the document as witness. She admitted that this document contained a stamp of Police Station, Sector 23, and also bore the signature of one Jasbir Singh H. C. and that it came to be there as after this form was handed over to her on completion, she sent sister Mark and Sister Tobias of the Institute to the Police Station alongwith Ranjna and shortly thereafter they brought back to her this document with the rubber stamp and the signature but she did not know personally as to what transpired at the police post at that time. She further deposed that the declarations in Ex. C-3 as well as in Ex. C-4 were not written or signed in her piesence by R. S. Chandel, or Ranjna respectively, as she at that time had gone to Delhi, nor did she know in whose presence they were executed by these two persons. She then stated that the child was handed over to the Institute on the same day on which the declaration in form Ex. C-2 was filled in. At that time Ranjna came with the child in the company of her father, maternal uncle and two other ladies and the father of Ranjna then told her that they intended to give over the child to the Institute. Since the declarations Ex. C-3 and C-4 were already with her, she knew as to what was the background in which this child was being given to the Institute. Since the declarations Ex. C-3 and C-4 were already with her, she knew as to what was the background in which this child was being given to the Institute. She then questioned Ranjna whether she really intended to give her child and also told her that she should consider the matter seriously since in case the child was given to the institute he was likely to be given in adoption. Said Ranjna after thinking over for five minutes again expressed her desire to give the child. After Ex. C-2 was executed she took Ranjna alone to another room and asked her in privacy whether she wanted to give the child or else it could be returned to her and again said Ranjna expressed her desire to part with the child. She, however, admitted that she did not verify at that time whether the contents of Ex. O3 and C-4 were correct. She also disclosed that the Institute in question had started negotiation for the adoption of the concerned child since a couple residing at Chandigarh (Mr. and Mrs. Vishai K. Gupta) had agreed to adopt the child and that as per the practice of their Institute, before the formalities of adoption are completed, the child is allowed to stay as guest with the proposed adoptive parents so that they might adjust with each other before the formalities of adoption are completed and since an agreement to that effect had been executed between the said couple and the Institute, the said couple was allowed to take the child temporarily to live with them, and in fact the child was with the couple when the warrant of the court for his production was received by her. The agreement in this behalf is Ex. C-5. On the receipt of the warrant, she then procured the child from the said couple for production in the Court after the said couple was informed of the pending proceedings in this Court and that she had now come to know that the child in question was not an illegitimate child, which fact she disclosed to the said couple by telling that the mother of the child wranted him back and they handed over the child to her without any objection. 27. 27. To the cross-examination by the counsel for the second respondent, she replied that as a matter of fact when she took Ranjna aside to confirm whether she was really willing to give the child to the Institute, she had not taken her to a room as stated earlier, but to an open prayer place and at that time the aunt of Ranjna was also accompanying her. She did so as Ranjna was crying at that time and she was, therefore, not sure of the circumstances under which she was giving the child. 28. Sister Mark of the Shanti Dan Missionaries of Charity has also stated that the day Ranjna came to the said Charity Home at the time of the delivery of the child, she was accompanied by her father and maternal- Uncle. The father (second respondent) then told her that Ranjna was un married and was in a family-way and that she should be helped out of her difficulty. She then confirmed from Ranjna whether she wanted to stay in the institute to which she replied in the affirmative. Said Ranjna then stayed in the said Home, while the two persons accompanying her went away. Soonafter said Ranjna started having labour pains and she was sent by her to the General Hospital Chandigarh for delivery with other employees, while she remained in the Charity Home. To the questions asked on behalf of the second respondent, she replied that Ranjna did not disclose to her at that time that she was under duress of anybody but she kept on constantly crying when she remained with her for half an hour. 29. Sister Tobias of the same Institute has stated that on January 18, 1988, when Ranjna was brought to the Institute. Sister Parsana was out of station. Ranjna at that time was accompanied by her father and maternal uncle and the father of Ranjna (second respondent) then told her that Ranjna was pregnant while still unmarried and, therefore, she be admitted in the Institute. She then asked the second respon dent that they should be provided a warranty that their Institute would not be responsible in case the girl left the Institute without permission. Sometime later, the second respondent and Ranjna gave her the papers duly executed (C-3 and C-4) and they had appended their signatures in her presence on those documents. She then asked the second respon dent that they should be provided a warranty that their Institute would not be responsible in case the girl left the Institute without permission. Sometime later, the second respondent and Ranjna gave her the papers duly executed (C-3 and C-4) and they had appended their signatures in her presence on those documents. She admitted that these documents were not in respect of the warranty aforesaid but rather they refer to giving away of the child to be born to Ranjna to the said Institute She further stated that since at that time Ranjna was in labour pains she took her to the General Hospital Chandigarh and after getting her admitted overthere she left the hospital after asking the doctor concerned to keep her informed about the progress in the case- She also added that when later on the child was delivered at the said Institute she and Sister Parsana were present at the Institute when a document Ex. C-2 was executed, which was also verified by the Head Constable, Incharge, Police Post, Sector 23, where she had herself gone for that purpose. 30. Sister Parasana was then again questioned and she explained how the children of un-married mothers are taken in the Institute and further given in adoption. According to her the procedure is that the children of un-wedded mothers usually are accepted. The child is given in adoption to the family willing to adopt such children, names of such families are already registered in the institute for the said purpose. The adoptive parents are then called to the institute and shown the child and in case they agree to adopt him/her, they execute an agreement on an unstamped paper to the effect that they were willing to take such child in adoption and that they would look after the child well and would allow to inherit the property of the parents which they would not dispose of or alienate after the adoption and that the formalities for adoption would be ultimately finalised through the Court and in case the Court does not allow such adoption, the Institute reserves its right to take back the child. The child is allowed to be with the adoptive parents so that they may develop a rapport with the child so as to facilitate the final adoption, if approved by the Court. 31. The child is allowed to be with the adoptive parents so that they may develop a rapport with the child so as to facilitate the final adoption, if approved by the Court. 31. In the instant case they had made such preliminary agreement for giving over the child of Ranjna who was named as Sidharth to one Vishal Gupta and his wife and in fact had handed over the child to that couple as per the procedure that the institute adopts in this behalf. 32. Now notice may be taken of the documents produced in this case. Ex. C-l is the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Distt. Hospital, Kullu, dated March 30, 1988 whereby Ranjna was shown to be suffering from certain diseases for which she was under treatment as an O. P. D. case and was prescribed rest from March 25 to April 7, 1988. Ex. C-2 is the declaration from the Institute of Missionaries of Charity which purports to have been filled in by Ranjna, dated February 11, 1988, whereby she purports to have declared that she gave birth to a male child on January 18, 1988 at 11.30 p. m. when she was still unmarried and intend ed to continue her studies and that from this date of February 11, 1988 that child belonged to the Missionaries of Charity which would be free to give the child in adoption in case they found a suitable family. The Register No. of the child has been shown as 215, aged 25 days and name Sidharth. It also shows that it was witnessed by the father of Ranjna (second respondent) and the signatures thereon were obtained of one Jasbir Singh, H. C. Incharge, Police Post, Sector-23, Chandigarh to whom the report in this behalf was made. Then Ex. C-3 is the document scribed and signed by the second respondent dated January 18, 1988 to the effect that he was the father of Ranjna whom he had brought to Chandigarh for delivery and that since she was giving birth to illegitimate child, he and Ku. Ranjna did not want to keep the child-to-be-born with them and they wanted to keep and handover the child to Missionaries of Charity. Ex. Ranjna did not want to keep the child-to-be-born with them and they wanted to keep and handover the child to Missionaries of Charity. Ex. C-4 is the document which has been signed by Ranjria but scribed by the second respondent on the same date, that is, January 18, 1988 wherein she purports to have declared that while she was studying in the H. P. University in Simla, she developed illicit connection with one Ganga Singh, student of the same University, as a result of which she became pregnant, and that she of her own free will wanted to give the child to-be-born to the Missionaries of Charity. Ex. C-5 is the preliminary agreement which has been signed by N. Parsana, Incharge of Missionaries of Charity Sector-23, Chandigarh on one hand and Vishal and his wife, Madhu the adoptive parents, on the other, dated March 18, 1988, to the effect that the child would remain with the intended adoptive parents temporarily as guest till adoption was approved by the concerned court and that in case such adoption was not approved by the Court, the adoptive parents would return the child to the Institute. Ex. C-6 is the part of this agreement bearing five rupees stamp which is dated March 24, 1988. Ex. C-7 is the document which gives the particulars of Sidharth, a male child of Ranjna who is shown to have been born on January 18, 1988 and given to the Charity Home on February 11, 1988. Ex. C-8 is the certificate of birth of this child issued by Chandigarh Administration, Department of Health as January 18, 1988 and the parents name has been scribed therein as father Ganga Singh and mother Ranjna and the place of delivery is the General Hospital, 16-Chandigarh. 33. Ex. C-8 is the certificate of birth of this child issued by Chandigarh Administration, Department of Health as January 18, 1988 and the parents name has been scribed therein as father Ganga Singh and mother Ranjna and the place of delivery is the General Hospital, 16-Chandigarh. 33. From the foregoing narration, it becomes clear that when Ranjna entered into matrimonial relations with the petitioner, Ganga Singh, of her own free will without obtaining the consent of the parents in this behalf as she was above 18 years at that time and student of M. A. in the Himachal Pradesh University, the second respondent filed a writ petition in this Court asserting that she was being kept in unlawful confinement by Ganga Singh and his other associates of the S. F. I. When, however, said Ranjna appeared in the Court and categorically stated to the Court that she had entered into legal matrimonial relations with Ganga Singh of her own free will and was not under any duress from any quarter, the second respondent withdrew the writ petition. 34. It, however, appears that the second respondent did not reconcile to this matrimonial alliance and he was all the time looking for an opportunity to strike so as to permanently snap this matrimonial relation. He found an opportunity to do so when Ranjna was in advanced stage of preg nancy as a result of her cohabitation with her husband, the petitioner, when he met her in the Bazar at Kullu, where she had gone for medical check up, and took her to his residential house at Bashang on the pretext that her mother was sick. Thereafter he adopted all the means at his command to keep her away from the petitioner and his relations and ultimately when the petitioner approached the S. D. M. Kullu for issuance of a warrant under section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the plea that said Ranjna was being kept in unlawful confinement by the second, respondent, the second respondent played on the sentiments of Ranjna by telling her that in case she made a statement before the S. D. M. Kullu, that she was voluntarily residing at his house and was not under any unlawful confinement, he would try to patch-up with the petitioner and his family so as to put an end to the strained relations which were subsisting between the two families eversince the petitioner had married Ranjna and this induced Ranjna to make a statement before the S. D. M. as desired by him. 35. Thereafter apparently, the second respondent and his wifes brother Dinesh Sen were able to prevail upon Ranjna to have her delivery at Chandigarh instead of Kullu and after she was taken to Chandigarh both, the second respondent and Dinesh Sen apparently conspired to give the child-to-be-born to the missionaries of Charity Home and to take Ranjna back to Bashang so that she could be free to marry some other person. They thus after playing a ruse upon Ranjna obtained her signature on blank judicial papers out of which one was used by the second respondent at the Charity Home at Chandigarh when he scribed the document Ex. C-4 on January 18, 1988 to the effect that the child was a result of her illicity relations with the petitioner and that she was willing to give the child in the Charity Home and the other one they used when an affidavit of Ranjna dated March 24, 1988 was forged by them by conspiring with the Oath Commissioner at Kullu wherein she purports to have stated that her relations with the petitioner had become very strained for the last many months but the petitioner was still harassing her by adopting foul means and that she had been living with her parents since January 5, 1988 and did not want to live with the petitioner or his family and she was not under any duress on the part of her parents and was free to move about. This is very clear from the fact that although the judicial papers on which Ranjna purports to have executed her agreement to give the child-to-be-born to the Institute of Charity dated January 18, 1988, bears No. 0324692 of the year 1978 whereas the other forged affidavit at page 23 of the writ petition bearing date as March 24, 1988/March 26, 1988 bears No. 0324691 of the year 1978. This has further been confirmed by the statement of Ranjna that before leaving Kullu for Chandigarh on January 17, 1988. Dinesh Sen had obtained the signature of Ranjna on certain blank judicial papers. Then they were everywhere giving out that Ranjna was giving birth to an illegitimate child although they knew that Ranjna was a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. 36. It is also clear that even after the birth of the child these two persons, namely, the second respondent and Dinesh Sen, were putting tremendous pressure on Ranjna to part with the child just after the birth despite the protests by Ranjna and when they found that Ranjna was not breaking under their pressure to part with the child, they brought her with the child from Chandigarh to Mandi and instead of taking her to Bashang they secretly took Ranjna and the child to Gohar in Mandi District and kept Ranjna and the child with the sister of the second respondent, Smt. Paul, over there with strict instructions that Ranjna should not be allowed to establish any contact with the petitioner or the members of his family. Ranjna was thus kept confined in the house of Smt. Paul at Gohar till February 5, 1988 and on that date the second respondent and said Dinesh Sen again took her to Chandigarh to the Institute of Charity to finally give away the child to the Institution and to completely was their hands of him without the petitioner or any outsider coming to know that Ranjna has delivered a male child, so that she could be free to enter into another matrimonial alliance in accordance with the wishes of second respondent and Dinesh Sen. It is also apparent from the record that the Incharge of the Institute Sister Parsana had accepted the child on condition that he would never be returned to Ranjna nor would she be allowed to meet the child again and she had further initiated process to give the child in adoption to Vishal Gupta and his wife Madhu. Be it stated, however, that no final adoption deed had been executed in this behalf yet and in view of the fact that this child was given away to the said institute by adopting such illegal and underhand means, this handing over and taking over of this child inter se Ranjna and the institute through a subterfuge played by the second respondent and Dinesh Sen was thoroughly illegal and improper. In fact, as is apparent from the record, the second respondent and said Dinesh Sen were so much obsessed with the idea of weaning away Ranjna from the petitioner that even when this writ was pending in this Court and process had been issued, to produce the body of Ranjna in the Court, against the second respondent, certain highly illegal methods were resorted to, to present a false and distorted picture even before the court by asserting that said Ranjna was so ill that she was not in a position to be brought to the Court. A false Medical Certificate was obtained by conspiring with the Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital at Kullu to show that said Ranjna was suffering from certain ailment although she was actually not suffering from any such ailment and the Medical Officer issued the certificate without even examining Ranjna, as has been categorically stated by her. A false Medical Certificate was obtained by conspiring with the Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital at Kullu to show that said Ranjna was suffering from certain ailment although she was actually not suffering from any such ailment and the Medical Officer issued the certificate without even examining Ranjna, as has been categorically stated by her. Not only that but the second respondent and said Dinesh Sen also went to the extent of forging a false affidavit in conspiracy with the Oath Commissioner at Kullu to the effect that the relations between Ranjna and the petitioner had become so strained that she had left his society and started living with her parents but the petitioner was still harassing her by adopting foul means, it has also been stated in the said affidavit that she was sick and was residing with her parents of her own free will and her liberty or movements were not restricted in any manner by her parents, and the second respondent had the audacity to produce these forged documents on the record of the case. 37. No doubt Ranjna purports to have executed the declaration whereby the child was given to the aforesaid institute of the missionaries but we have no doubt, in the facts and circumstances, that this was done by her under extreme pressure and collusion on the part of the second respondent and Dinesh Sen. All the employees of the said institute who were examined in the Court as witnesses have stated that Ranjna was wailing all the times when these formalities were being gone through and even according to sister Parsana, the Incharge of the institute, she at that particular time had become doubtful whether this giving over of child to the institute by Ranjna was a voluntary act on her part. In fact her tears at that time were more eloquent than even the loudest protest in this behalf would have been. 38. In view of the above discussion, we, therefore, hold that the parents of this child, namely, Ranjna and the petitioner, are the legitimate persons to have the custody of the child whose custody has also been restored by us to her and they henceforth shall be entitled to continue having his custody and bring him up as their child. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 39. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 39. Before parting with this petition, however, we further hold that on the basis of the facts which have come on record, the second respondent (Ranjit Singh Chandel) and Dinesh Sen appear to have prima facie committed offences under sections 109, 120-B, 193, 196, 197, 209, 342, 344, 345, 346, 368, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34, I. P. C. besides being liable under the Contempt of Courts Act. Smt. Shakutla Paul is orima facie, liable for the offences under sections 109, 120-B, 342, 344, 345, 346, 368 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Medical Officer at Kullu and the Oath Commissioner are also liable, prima facie, for the offences under sections 109, 120-B, 193, 196, 465 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also considered expedient in the interest of justice by this Court to prosecute the aforesaid persons for the offences set out above. Let, therefore, notices issue to them to show-cause why they should not be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. Order accordingly. -