Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 800 (MP)

Shriram Gupta v. Ramji Sharan Gupta

2006-06-29

A.K.GOHIL, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2006
ORDER Gohil, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the release of Anil Gupta. Petitioner contended that on 5.2.2005 respondents No.1 Ramji Sharan Gupta who is father-in-law of missing Anil Gupta, respondent No.2 Mukesh Gupta who is son of respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 Pinky Gupta, who is wife of missing Anil Gupta have detained his son Anil Gupta and on filing complaint he was released from the custody of the respondents No.1 to 3 on 12.2.2005. It is alleged that thereafter again respondents No. I to 3 have illegally detained the son of the petitioner with a view to fetch sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. In reply the respondent-State has stated that there is dispute between wife Pinky Gupta and husband Anil Gupta. On the report of missing by the petitioner a Crime No. 44/05 has been registered and the police is trying to search the said missing person Anil Gupta, but he is not available. It is further submitted that both parties have lodged various complaints against each other. It is further contended that respondent No.3 Pinky Gupta wife of missing Anil Gupta had also filed a petition under section 125, CrPC for maintenance and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seondha District Datia in MJC No. 22/2004 vide order dated 17.1.2005 has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife Pinky Gupta. The case was also contested by son of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seondha District Datia. 3. The police has also stated that wife Pinky Gupta has also filed a complaint about demand of dowry by missing husband as well as his family members and Crime No. 135/04 has been registered at Police Stateion, Inderganj, Gwalior and charge sheet has been filed under section 498A/34 of IPC against the said missing person Anil Gupta and his family members. 4. Similar reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3, in which it is stated that a criminal complaint has been filed by the wife of the petitioner against the respondents No. 1 to 3 alongwith some other persons under sections 392, 452, 323, 294, 506B of IPC and sections 11/13 of MPDAVPK Act, which is pending before the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gwalior. The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply has also stated that son of the petitioner is not in their custody as alleged by the petitioner and now he is missing and their relations are not cordial. 5. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that there is dispute between the parties and petitioner has failed to produce any evidence on record that his son Anil Gupta is in the custody of the respondents No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the State respondents has also stated that missing Anil Gupta is not in the custody of the respondents who are in-laws. Thus, in such circumstances prima facie there is no proof on record that the missing Anil Gupta is in custody of the respondents. Therefore, we do not find any material for issuance writ of habeas corpus. 6. No doubt, personal liberty of a person is a paramount importance for upholding the fundamental right of a person. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ of the highest constitutional importance, being remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest. It is acclaimed as palladium of liberty of the common man. Despite the paramount importance and the high efficacy of the writ of habeas corpus, its scope is circumscribed. The writ of habeas corpus is designed to afford immediate relief from illegal confinement or restraint and is used for the vindication of the right to personal liberty by scrutinizing the legality of the restraint. It is a process devised in the main for obtaining deliverance from unlawful detention, and its great object is the liberation of those who may be kept under wrongful restraint or captivity. 7. The writ of habeas corpus is available not only to a person detained in public custody, but also to any illegal restraint of freedom in private life. It can be issued not only for release from detention by the State but also for release from private detention. But prima facie, there should be a proof of illegal custody or detention against the person. 8. In this case, we do not find that any material has been placed before the Court that the person is in illegal custody of the respondents. State has also enquired into the matter. But prima facie, there should be a proof of illegal custody or detention against the person. 8. In this case, we do not find that any material has been placed before the Court that the person is in illegal custody of the respondents. State has also enquired into the matter. The relation between the petitioner, his missing Anil Gupta and respondents are not cordial and on investigation, State has also found that Anil Gupta is not in custody of the respondents. In these circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to issue any writ of habeas corpus for the release of the detenue. 9. After considering the record and material prima facie we are of the view that no case is made out for issue of any such writ or direction. However, in the interest of justice, a direction is issued to respondents-State that respondent-police will register a case of missing person and shall investigate in the matter and shall also make intensive efforts to search missing Anil Gupta and the petitioner, who is father of missing Anil Gupta will assist the police in searching and after investigation act in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. N.K. Saxena for petitioner; A.K. Dubey for respondents No. 1 to 3.