Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 638 (GUJ)

Rabari Ratnabhai Mankabhai v. State of Gujarat

2020-07-27

N.V.ANJARIA, SONIA GOKANI

body2020
ORDER : 1. This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “(a) To issue writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent no. 3 i.e. in-charge of Mehsana “A” Division Police Station, Tehsil Mehsana, District Mehsana to produce the Corpus “Bhagwatiben” before this Hon’ble Court from the illegal custody of respondent no. 4 and to handover the custody of Corpus “Bhagwatiben” to the petitioner. (b) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. This Court on 20.07.2020 passed the following order:- “1. This Court on 14.07.2020 in a petition seeking writ of habeas corpus passed the following order:- “(1) Leave to add the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar as a party respondent no. 5, is permitted. The daughter of the petitioner was married to one Mr. Rabari Lalabhai 10 years before and a child has been born to the couple from the said wedlock who is aged about 8 years. She was selected as Unarmed Lok Rakshak and the training was organized at Mehsana Centre. (2) On 26.01.2018 as she did not join the duty at Gandhinagar, the petitioner moved an application of missing of the person on 09.02.2018, however, no First Information Report was lodged. (3) It is apprehended by the applicant that the respondent no. 4 has forcibly taken away his daughter Bhagvatiben-corpus herein and after 22.02.2018 from the training she has disappeared and not found till date. All his attempts to get the where-about of the daughter and the request for lodgment of First Information Report, have fell on the Deaf ears. He therefore, is before this Court seeking prayer of issuance of writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ. (4) We have heard learned advocate Mr. Kotai appearing for the petitioner and perused the material that he has placed before the Court. (5) Issue Notice returnable on 24.07.2020. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The respondent no. 4 shall be served through respondent no. 3. (6) Let the corpus be brought before this Court on or before 24.07.2020 or else with the Action Taken Report, the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar shall remain before this Court through video conference, on the returnable date.” 2. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The respondent no. 4 shall be served through respondent no. 3. (6) Let the corpus be brought before this Court on or before 24.07.2020 or else with the Action Taken Report, the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar shall remain before this Court through video conference, on the returnable date.” 2. Today, the corpus has been brought before us via video conferencing through the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar for her having tested Covid-19 virus test. We have also before us through the video conferencing, Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar Mr. Chavda, who submitted that the lady has been found from Selvas and he also has revealed that two of her siblings are in police force. It is pointed out to the Court from the report tendered that the Corpus has serious disputes with her husband. Two of the applications, which had been tendered by the husband in the month of March, 2018 was followed by criminal complaint lodged by the corpus being C.R. No. I-35 of 2018 registered with Gandhinagar, Sector-21 police station for the offence punishable under sections 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code on 11.05.2018. She also moved a petition before this Court by way of Special Criminal Application No. 3683 of 2018 under section 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for police protection as she was apprehensive of the threat on her life from her father, both her siblings and her husband. The Court granted such protection by virtue of the order dated 04.05.2018. It appears that her complaint came to be lodged on 11.05.2018 as possibly till then, no protection had been given to her. For and on behalf of Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate Mr. Jigar Gadhavi had represented the corpus before this Court. According learned advocate Mr. Gandhi, who represents the corpus and who represents her before this Court, no protection had been given by the then Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar. 3. With these details, we had conversed today with the corpus, who has in clear terms revealed that she has serious threat from her husband and unfortunately her father and both the siblings also have joined hands of the husband. She, on account of the threat perceived by her, could not join her service and had chosen to go away at Selvas. She, on account of the threat perceived by her, could not join her service and had chosen to go away at Selvas. She is scared of all of them and also narrated the story as to how she needed to run away on account of the threat perpetrated by these persons when she was compelled to lodged the First Information Report on 11.05.2018. She has realized her mistake of not having sent any application to the superior officer, but is keen to join her service as Lok Rakshak. She urges that she be given necessary protection so that threat on her life from her husband and her parental side be taken care of. 4. Noticing the fact that the corpus has gone away on her own because of the events which took place, which has been narrated by her in her conversation today before the Court, when she was presented before the Video Conferencing and which could be culled out from the report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar, we direct the petitioner, the father of the corpus, to file an affidavit and explain as to why he attempted to mislead the Court and not reveal all these details including the grant of protection to the Corpus by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3683 of 2018 on 04.05.2018, as he also is one of the respondents in that application. 5. Further details with regard to siblings of the corpus and any other details, which have been revealed by the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar by way of an additional report to the Court and also the present status of her service front, after getting the details from the concerned office. 6. Matter is being fixed on 27.07.2020.” 3. The additional affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner-father. According to him, he was desirous to know as to whether his daughter was well or not and also needed to know whether she resided on her own will and without any duress. He was not aware of the First Information Report lodged by his daughter being I-CR No. 35 of 2018 with the Gandhinagar Police Station nor was he having any relations with the husband of the corpus who happens to be the son-in-law. He had no clue so far as Special Criminal Application No. 3683 of 2018 is concerned, since no notice was served. He had no clue so far as Special Criminal Application No. 3683 of 2018 is concerned, since no notice was served. As he now has become aware that her daughter is happy and is on her own, he is not wanting to interfere in her life. He is otherwise ready to keep her at his residence and she is always welcome as a daughter. It is also his say that when she has disputes with her husband and went to the petitioner’s home, he in fact supported her and encouraged her to join the police force. 4. The report submitted by the Superintendent of police, Gandhinagar states that the corpus has matrimonial disputes with her husband and therefore, she left her matrimonial home to join her father. She then was selected as the unarmed woman Lok Rakshak and had gone for her training on 12 June 2017. She Left on 26 January,2018 without intimating anyone and therefore, her brother, also a part of police force, Ashok Ratna Rabari had given a complaint to the ’A’ division police Station Mehsana, being missing Complainant 12 of 2018 on 9.2.2018. She presented herself on 16 February 2018 and stated that on 26 January 2018, after the celebration of Republic Day when she left for her father’s home, her sister called up that as her mother had passed away and she needed to go to her in-laws for post death ritual. Since she was not getting along with the husband, she chose to leave for her friend’s house at Silvassa and accordingly, the said missing complaint had been filed. She continued to be present from 21 February 2018 at Gandhinagar district. 4.1 One non-cognizable (NC) complaint 11 of 2018 had been preferred by her husband on 27 March 2018 before Gandhinagar sector 21 police station against the corpus that she resided with one Mr. Bhupender Chauhan at Silvassa although she continued to be married. He was given to understand to take recourse to the court of law for matrimonial dispute. 4.2 It is further reported that in special criminal application 3683 of 2018 preferred by the Corpus, she was directed to be provided the police protection on 04.05.2018. Bhupender Chauhan at Silvassa although she continued to be married. He was given to understand to take recourse to the court of law for matrimonial dispute. 4.2 It is further reported that in special criminal application 3683 of 2018 preferred by the Corpus, she was directed to be provided the police protection on 04.05.2018. On 10th May, 2018 she presented herself before the police official and in her statement, she categorically urged that as she was at the police headquarter women police Barrack sector 27 and hence, she did not require police protection. 4.3 Corpus lodged a complaint on 11 May 2018 being 2nd CR number 35 of 2018 before Gandhinagar sector-21 Police Station against her husband and others of threat to her life she experienced from him. 4.4 She once again had gone on a long leave from 11.5.2018 and was required to join the duties on 11th July 2018 but, never joined the duty. And, pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2020 of this court in this Petition, she was found from Bhilad. 4.5 We have heard extensively learned advocate Mr. Kotai appearing for the petitioner, the corpus herself and also have given opportunity for the applicant to present his case as learned advocate Mr. Kotai earnestly requested. We have also permitted the corpus and her father to interact through video conference. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi represented the corpus and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta represented the version of the State before us. 5. It emerges that the corpus has a serious matrimonial dispute leading to her filing of the complaint being I-CR No. 35 of 2018 with the Gandhinagar Police Station which is now pending as criminal case before the Gandhinagar Court. It also further emerges that when she moved this Court for police protection soon before the incident of 10.05.2018, this Court had directed the concerned officer to look into the same and provide her the protection without issuance of notice. Her statement was recorded by Police authorities where she stated that she was safe at women barrack and did not require protection then and the very next day, her husband is alleged to have attempted threat to her life. Her statement was recorded by Police authorities where she stated that she was safe at women barrack and did not require protection then and the very next day, her husband is alleged to have attempted threat to her life. It is quite much unlikely that the father and her siblings who are in police force were not aware of such protection offered to her pursuant to the Court’s direction, however, the fact remains that no notice had been issued. To say that the father was unaware of any criminal complaint filed at her end is also unacceptable as her not continuing her relationship with her husband or having left her son also is a sore point for the family pride and is construed as a social stigma by her family. The parents of the corpus also had severe disputes which also is one of the sore points in relationship of hers with her father as stated by her. Her mother died young as according to her, all on account of her father. In our prima facie reading, these human emotional entanglements are incapable of being resolved at legal level. Whether the father is supporting the husband because of the action on the part of the daughter and allegations and counter allegations in this regard can be resolved in appropriate proceedings and not in the present proceeding of the habeas corpus, thus we have chosen not to delve further into this with a strong caution to the Petitioner not to repeat in future such act of not revealing the complete picture, in the court proceedings. 5.1 The long and short is that she does not trust the family any further because of her past experiences and she is also not desirous of joining the father because of his alleged nexus with the husband. Be that as it may, she being an adult and educated lady can choose to decide her course of life. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing as an advocate of the corpus has urged that the protection which has been granted to her by this Court may continue as she is desirous of going back to Silvassa. For pursuing the remedy before the Gandhinagar Court, if she requires police protection, the same be continued. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing as an advocate of the corpus has urged that the protection which has been granted to her by this Court may continue as she is desirous of going back to Silvassa. For pursuing the remedy before the Gandhinagar Court, if she requires police protection, the same be continued. He also ensured to advise her to put her house in order and the corpus herself has ensured the Court to take all legal recourses to see that the logical end is brought to her marital status and also to the service that she has joined. 7. Considering the fact that the corpus chooses to be on her own, this petition deserves to be disposed of with the following directions. 7.1. The police protection had been directed to be given to her in the earlier petition being Special Criminal Application No. 3683 of 2018, as she is keen to go back to Silvassa on a medical discharge, let her be provided with police protection till she reaches there. So far as the direction of providing the protection to her will be so long as she will be in the state of Gujarat on her request made to the SP, Gandhinagar. If she chooses to pursue legal remedy in the FIR being I-CR No. 35 of 2018, the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar shall ensure that the protection be given to her so that she can appear before the Court concerned. 7.2. She will tender an application to the appropriate authority within 15 days so that the logical end could be brought to the issue of her service as Lok Rakshak. Considering the personal reasons of hers, if she moves any application, the authority concerned may sympathetically regard the same. 7.3. The petitioner shall not take the law in his hands nor shall overreach the process of law, directly or indirectly. 8. With the above, petition stands disposed of.