Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 929 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Shukla v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, D.P.SINGH

body2008
Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner being the father of the girl Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukla has filed this application in the nature of habeas corpus for a direction to the respondents for production of the body of his daughter Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukla who, according to him, has been abducted and kidnapped by the respondent nos. 5 to 7. 3. It is said that in spite of the lodging of the F.I.R. being Kotwali (Sukhdev Nagar) P.S. Case No. 947/2007, registered under Sections 364/366A134 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent nos. 5 to 7, his daughter has not yet been recovered and the Police has not yet been able to locate her whereabouts. The petitioner apprehends that there is serious threat on the life of his daughter at the hands of the respondent nos. 5 to 7. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 namely Superintendent of Police as well as the Officer In-charge of the Kotwali Police Station. In the counter affidavit it is stated that during investigation and supervision, the allegations made in the F.I.R. have been found to be true against the accused persons. It is also stated that though several raids were conducted at different places but up till now, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have not been arrested since they are evading their arrest and the girl Manisha Kumari has also not been traced out. 5. When it came to the notice of this Court that the girl Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukla has filed a separate writ petition being W.P.(Cr.) No. 54 of 2008 for quashing the F.I.R. being Kotwali (Sukhdev Nagar) P.S. Case No. 947/2007, registered under Sections 364/366A134 of the Indian Penal Code lodged by her father (petitioner herein) against the respondent no. 5 and the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have also filed a separate application being Cr. M.P. No. 619 of 2008 for quashing of the said F.I.R., then this Court, by order dated 1.8.2008, directed that all the three petitions, which are inter-related, be listed together under the heading for 'Admission' in Chambers and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who represented the girl Manisha Kumari in W.P.(Cr.) No. 54 of 2008, was directed to produce the girl Manisha Kumari before this Court on the next date fixed. Rajesh Kumar, who represented the girl Manisha Kumari in W.P.(Cr.) No. 54 of 2008, was directed to produce the girl Manisha Kumari before this Court on the next date fixed. Accordingly, this application has been listed today before us in Chambers for 'Admission'. 6. We have heard all the concerned parties. 7. The petitioner Sushil Kumar Shukla i.e. the father of the girl as well as his daughter Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukla, are present in person before this Court. We talked to the girl Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukla in Chambers. She categorically stated that, out of her own free will, she left her parent's house in order to marry the respondent no. 5 Rajesh Kumar @ Chunna and after marriage with him in Delhi, now she is carrying the pregnancy. She emphatically denied the fact of her kidnapping or abduction at the himds of the respondent nos. 5 to 7. She further stated that it is her father, who is adopting all sorts of pressure tactics so that she may return to him. But she is not ready to go to her parent's house at any cost and she wants to live peacefully with h.er husband and in-laws. 8. In view of the specific statements made by the girl, who is a Graduate and is a major, she cannot be forced to go With her father against her own will, particularly when she has already married With the respondent no. 5 and is carrying pregnancy. 9. In this view of the matter the relief prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed. 10. The other petition, which was tagged with these petitions are being disposed of by separate orders.