Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 758 (PAT)

Puspa Devi Agrawal v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-24

MADHAVENDRA SARAN, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G. 3 for the State. 2. This criminal writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to give the custody of the boy to the petitioner, who is said to have been kept in wrongful confinement by respondent nos. 6 and 7. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner aged one and half years was forcibly taken away by respondent nos. 6 and 7 and despite best efforts of the pertitioner, the custody of the son has not been restored. 4. On own showing of the petitioner, it appears that for alleged taking away of the boy, Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 255 of 2005 was registered at the behest of the petitioner, where investigation is going on. 5. It is, however, submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the police is not taking any positive step in the matter to restore the custody of the boy. 6. Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 and 7 on the contrary submitted that they are Mausa and Mausi of the boy who was given in adoption to them by performing certain formalities as they have no issued and the boy accordingly is in their custody as adopted child. It is also submitted by counsel that the petitioner now wants to resile from the previous acts and therefore, this criminal writ application is not maintainable. 7. Learned A.A.G. 3 appearing for the State submitted that in view of pendency of the case for substantive offence this criminal writ application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Keeping in view of the disputed facts of giving the child in custody of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 by way of adoption and the fact that Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 255 of 2005 has been registered for the alleged offence, where the investigation is going on, we do not find any ground, whatsoever, to maintain this writ application. Moreso, the petitioner has also other remedies, as contemplated under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. For the reasons aforementioned this application is dismissed.