Dayaram S/o Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, Through Director General of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2017-12-21
AJAY RASTOGI, KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA
body2017
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. The father of detenue has approached this Court with the complaint that her daughter Mundri has been illegally kidnapped by respondent-5 Rakesh @ Kallu S/o Karan Singh & at his instance FIR No. 0380/2017 came to be registered on 19-11-2017 at Police Station Nagar, Bharatpur for offence u/S.363 & 366 IPC and according to him when no action was taken by the respondents no option was left with him except to approach this Court by filing of the instant habeas corpus petition. 2. Notices were issued by this Court on 4-12-2017, pursuant thereto Investigating Machinery came into motion and the detenue Mundri D/o Dayaram was recovered from Jhansi (UP) on 20-12-2017 & produced today before the Court in pre-lunch session & taking note of the facts brought to our notice, we considered it appropriate that before we may proceed in the matter any further let statement of the detenue Mundri D/o Dayaram be recorded by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) and the matter thereafter be placed before the Court in post-lunch session. 3. In compliance of our order the statement of detenue Mundri D/o Dayaram has been recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 21-12-2017, marked as Annx-“A” and she has stated that her date of birth is 1-1-1999 & is a student of B.A Part-1st year at Government College, Alwar and Rakesh who is impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the petition is known to her for last more than four years and both of them have a liking for each other and she left her parental home on 15-11-2017 along with Rakesh with her own free will & stayed at different places and as on today she is having a fetus of four months from Rakesh and has shown her inclination to go & to stay with him & to solemnize marriage with Rakesh. 4. From perusal of the case diary it reveals that in her Secondary School Examination Certificate of Board of Secondary Education her date of birth recorded is 16-4-2000 according to which she is at the verge of attaining the age of majority but the facts brought to our notice that there is FIR registered against Rakesh who is impleaded as respondent no.
5 to the petition, for the offence u/S.363 & 366 IPC her wishes may not be possible to carry out as disclosed by the detenue Mundri in her statement recorded on 21-12-2017. 5. The detenue has specifically made a statement before the Court that she does not want to go & stay with her parents and only wants to go with respondent no. 5 Rakesh @ Kallu with whom she intends to solemnize marriage. Although she has not been medically examined at the same time she is at the verge of attaining the age of majority and at least from the material on record she could not be said to be illegally abducted by respondent no. 5 Rakesh in reference to which complaint came to be made by the petitioner in the instant habeas corpus petition which can certainly be taken note of from her statement recorded on 21-12-2017 under the orders of this Court by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). 6. In the given facts & circumstances, when the detenue Mundri D/o Dayaram is not willing to go with her parents and there is a criminal case registered against respondent no. 5 Rakesh @ Kallu for offence u/S.363 & 366 IPC it may not be possible for the detenue to go ahead with him, we consider it appropriate to direct that let the detenue Mundri D/o Dayaram be lodged to Nari Niketan, Bharatpur & be produced before the concerned Magistrate for recording her statement & to take further action permissible under the law and as informed to this Court that the detenue Mundri D/o Dayaram is having a fetus of four months as alleged which is always subject to her medical examination we direct the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Bharatpur to provide all medical assistance to her as long as she remain in Nari Niketan, Bharatpur. 7. It is made clear what is being observed by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the habeas corpus petition and neither the Investigating Officer nor the court below be influenced/inhibited by the observations made and may take appropriate action permissible under the law. 8. With these directions/observations, the habeas corpus petition stands disposed of.