Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1294 (RAJ)

Vikrant Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-01

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
ORDER Rathore, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This habeas corpus petition has been jointly filed by Vikrant Singhal and Gopal Singhal, who are residents of Jatiyawas, inside Madar Gate, Ajmer. Shri Vikrant Singhal is aged about 23 years and is son of Gopal Singhal. Petitioner No.2 Gopal Singhal aged 61 years, is father of petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal. It has been prayed by the petitioners that habeas corpus petition be allowed and respondent No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. Director General of Police, Jaipur; Superintendent of Police, Ajmer and SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar Gate, Ajmer, respectively be directed to produce respondent No.4 Parvati Agarwal D/o Radhakishan Agarwal, resident of Opposite Moti Begam Maszid Lane, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad (A.P.). Further, it has been prayed that respondent No.6- General Manager, Facebook, Head Office, Banglore (India) be directed not to delete the massages sent by respondent No.4. 3. The petitioners, father and the son, have averred in the writ petition that petitioner No.2 is running a business of plastic household items in the name of M/s. Singhal Packaging at Ajmer and petitioner No.1 is also involved in the said business of his father. Further, it is averred by the petitioners that Vikrant Singhal, petitioner No.1 and Parvati Agarwal-respondent No.4 are known to each other and they are in contact for last about two years. The petitioners have also averred that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 are booming friends. They had been contacting each other through phone, internet, etc. The petitioners have averred that Parvati Agarwal respondent No.4 had gone to Ajmer in the year 2013 and had proposed petitioner No.1 to marry. It is also stated that she remained at Ajmer for about 18 days, but petitioner no.1 Vikrant Singhal declined to marry against the will of his parents. On 16.02.2014, respondent No.4 had disclosed to her mother about her being in contract with petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal. It is alleged that thereafter respondent No.5 Radhakishan Agarwal had beaten respondent No.4. It is also averred in the writ petition that respondent No.4 had informed petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal about the fact that her parents had taken away her mobile and disconnected the internet. It is also stated that respondent No.4 was restrained from study and to go to the college. 4. It is also averred in the writ petition that respondent No.4 had informed petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal about the fact that her parents had taken away her mobile and disconnected the internet. It is also stated that respondent No.4 was restrained from study and to go to the college. 4. Respondent No.4 is said to have made the last call to petitioner No.1 on 18.02.2014 and the petitioners are having the apprehension of illegal detention of respondent No.4 Parvati Agarwal. The petitioners are said to have approached the police station concerned to lodge a first information report but that was denied. The District Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate were also contacted by the petitioners, but no heed was paid in respect of their grievances. 5. The notices in the case were issued to respondent No.5 and 6. After service, respondent No.5 has filed reply to the writ petition whereby he has contested the same and requested that it may be dismissed with an exemplary cost. It is stated in the reply that respondent No.4 is in lawful custody of her parents in parental house at Hyderabad. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 is in illegal detention and as such, the habeas corpus petition be dismissed. It is also averred in the reply that respondent No.4 never came to Ajmer. According to the answering respondent, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Further, it is stated that no cause of action had arose under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been averred in the reply that after service of notice of the writ petition, the answering respondent appeared before the Court personally on 25.03.2014 alongwith respondent No.4 on their own, without there being any order for personal appearance passed by the Court. Therefore, it is clear that the present case is not a one of illegal detention. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 was busy in preparation for examination of B.Com III Year and she had appeared in the said examination as well as practical classes continuously which had started from 27.03.2014 and would be over by 22.04.2014. Therefore, it is clear that the present case is not a one of illegal detention. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 was busy in preparation for examination of B.Com III Year and she had appeared in the said examination as well as practical classes continuously which had started from 27.03.2014 and would be over by 22.04.2014. It has been emphatically averred in the additional plea that contents of writ petition with regard to presence of respondent No.4 at Ajmer with the petitioners for 18-19 days in the year 2013, is completely false and fabricated and the same are supported by the affidavits of both the petitioners, which requires a stern action against them by this Court. 6. Respondent No.4 Parvati Agarwal has, on her own, filed a reply to the writ petition whereas no notices of the same were issued by the Court. It is averred in the reply that habeas corpus petition has been filed only to harass and create pressure, on the basis of false and fabricated allegations. Further, it is averred that respondent No.4 never came to Ajmer. She has also raised a question of locus standi of the petitioners for filing the present habeas corpus petition and that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to entitle the petitioners to file this habeas corpus petition. Therefore, it is averred that the habeas corpus petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. She has also submitted that the petitioners have no legal right to seek relief, as prayed for in this habeas corpus petition. In reply to para No.3 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the same is not admitted in the manner stated therein. It has been submitted that there was only Facebook chatting. It has also been stated by respondent No.4 that she was busy in preparing for her examination. She has emphatically submitted that she had never come to Ajmer. In the last, it has been averred by respondent No.4 that contents of para 11 of the writ petition are strongly denied as being misconceived as well as being false because the answering respondent is residing with the parents in her parental house at Hyderabad and there is no question of any illegal custody or detention. 7. In the last, it has been averred by respondent No.4 that contents of para 11 of the writ petition are strongly denied as being misconceived as well as being false because the answering respondent is residing with the parents in her parental house at Hyderabad and there is no question of any illegal custody or detention. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents had reiterated their averments made in the petition and the reply while making submissions before the Court. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.4 is in illegal detention and direction needs to be issued to respondent police authorities to produce the girl respondent No.4, whereas the counsel for the respondents, including that of respondent No.4 had emphatically denied, there being a case of illegal detention. On the contrary, the emphasis of learned counsel for respondents was that this habeas corpus petition has been filed without any foundation and the same deserves to be dismissed and heavy cost needs to be levied on the petitioners. 8. We have thoroughly considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties. Instant case is rather having peculiar facts of its own. The habeas corpus petition has been jointly filed by Vikrant Singhal and his father Gopal Sighal. As per the case of the petitioners themselves, Vikrant Singhal has friendship with respondent No.4- Parvati Agarwal and his concern about her, with the apprehension of illegal detention, has made him to file this petition. But so far as petitioner No.2 Gopal Singhal is concerned, he has no direct nexus with the subject matter of the present petition. As a matter of fact, he has no locus standi to file this habeas corpus petition. On perusal of the writ petition, it is revealed that general averments in respect of facts are made without there being any relevant details. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 are said to have been knowing each other for about two years. It is also stated that they have fallen in love. They were in touch of each other through phone and internet and then decided to get married. No particular circumstance, date, etc. have been mentioned in this regard. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 are said to have been knowing each other for about two years. It is also stated that they have fallen in love. They were in touch of each other through phone and internet and then decided to get married. No particular circumstance, date, etc. have been mentioned in this regard. As for instance, it is averred by the petitioners that respondent No.4 had come to Ajmer in the year 2013, without giving any specific dates, etc. and had asked petitioner No.1 to marry her. It is also stated that she remained at Ajmer for about 18 days. This fact has been specifically denied not only by respondent No.5-Radhakishan Agarwal, father of the girl but also Parvati Agarwal-respondent No.4 herself, in a separate reply filed by her. Similarly, neither any detail nor any supporting material has been placed on record so as to show that respondent No.4 was being harassed or given beating by her mother, who has not been made a party to the writ petition or about taking away of mobile, internet and levying ban on her from going to the college. On the contrary, respondent No.4 has specifically averred in the reply that she had been busy in preparing for the examination of B.Com III Year in the month of March, 2014. It is only on the basis of so-called last call on 18.02.2014 from respondent No.4 that the petitioners have averred that since then she is in illegal detention. It is also stated that the petitioners had approached the police station to lodge a first information report which was denied, without mentioning the date, time and the police station to which they had approached. Even if lodging of the report was denied, it was open for the petitioners to have approached the concerning judicial court. But nothing of this sort seems to have been done by the petitioners and they hushed up to this Court by filing a habeas corpus petition. 9. Coming to yet another important aspects of the matter, we would like to mention that the petitioners have approached this Court for directing respondent No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the authorities of Rajasthan Police to produce respondent No.4 before it. 9. Coming to yet another important aspects of the matter, we would like to mention that the petitioners have approached this Court for directing respondent No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the authorities of Rajasthan Police to produce respondent No.4 before it. It is noteworthy that the petitioners have not impleaded any of the authorities of State of Andhra Pradesh, of which respondent No.4 and 5 are permanent residents and are also presently residing. Besides, another important question which arises in the present case is as to whether this Court has jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, to direct the respondent Rajasthan Police to produce a resident of State of Andhra Pradesh before it. It is not the case of any of the parties that a resident of State of Andhra Pradesh had come to Rajasthan and committed any offence of which any report or investigation is pending with Rajasthan Police. Therefore, this habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained by this Court also on account of the fact that there is lack of jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief, as sought by the petitioners. 10. In view of the above and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in a habeas corpus petition on merits and also the fact that the respondents are not residents of State of Rajasthan and the jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to the State of Andhra Pradesh, we are of the considered opinion that this habeas corpus petition has to fail and deserves to be rejected. 11. Consequently, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits and for want of jurisdiction.