Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 768 (GUJ)

Kantibhai Maganbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2020-09-16

N.V.ANJARIA, SONIA GOKANI

body2020
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. This is a petition preferred by the father of the corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the illegal detention of his daughter – Gargi who, according to him, allegedly has been kidnapped and detained by respondent no, 4. Seeking her production before this Court by way of following prayers this petition is preferred: - “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of Habeas Corpus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the daughter of the petitioner Gargi Kantibhai Patel before this Hon’ble Court and thereafter, pass appropriate orders with regard to handing over the custody of daughter to the petitioner immediately; (B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the custody of his daughter, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as are deemed fit, in the interest of justice;” 2. According to the petitioner on 07.04.2020 respondent no.4 went to his residence and asked for his daughter. When the Petitioner father refused to call her, he abused him and gave threats to his life and to other members of the family. It is his say that after respondent no.4 left home, he called his daughter who in turn called respondent no.4 and asked him what he had said to his father and entire family, to which respondent no.4 replied that petitioner-father would know it better and disconnected the call. It is further his say that after some time, wife of the petitioner called her daughter who did not reply and the entire family searched the daughter and managed to get the address of respondent no.4. She was persuaded to go back with him, however, she refused to go with his brother and the family of the petitioner came to know that his daughter and respondent no.4 got married on 26.04.2017. It is the say that petitioner himself along with well-wishers went to the resident of respondent no.4 but his daughter was not called and respondent no.4 bluntly refused to allow the father to meet the daughter. His daughter has been kept locked and she was not permitted to meet the petitioner. 3. Efforts made to see and meet her when yielded no fruits, respondent no. His daughter has been kept locked and she was not permitted to meet the petitioner. 3. Efforts made to see and meet her when yielded no fruits, respondent no. 2 – Police Inspector, Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar thereafter was approached on 20.04.2020 explaining the entire incident where the apprehension was expressed and the request was made to lodge FIR of kidnapping as well as of threat to the life of his daughter from the Respondent no.4. 4. It is further his say that he went on inquiring about the status of his complaint and also asked about the daughter’s details, however, no reply has been received from the Police Inspector, respondent no.2 and therefore, the petitioner once again made an application and raised concern about the threat to the life of his daughter but, no response was received from respondent no.2 nor any action was initiated by the respondent no.2 who even did not care to intimate the progress of complaint made to it. He being the father and because of the illegal detention made by respondent no.4, he is of the firm belief that some unfortunate incident may occur with his daughter and therefore, he approached this Court with the aforementioned prayers. 5. Without issuance of notice, noticing the fact that the application had been made to the respondent no. 2, we made a request to the learned additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta to inquire from the respondent no.2 as to what progress was made so far as the application given by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 is concerned and today, a detailed report of Mr. J.H.Singhvi, Police Inspector, Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar has been submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5.1. In the said report it is clearly conveyed that on 21.04.2020 the application came to be given by the present applicant where he has alleged against respondent no.4 having forcibly taken his daughter. The similar natured application also had been given to the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar. Both these applications had been registered as Application No. 67 of 2020 and Application No. 278 of 2020 respectively. 5.2. His daughter, corpus Gargi gave an application against her parents being Application No. 78 of 2020 on 28.04.2020. Both the applications were investigated by Woman Police Sub-Inspector Ms. A.S.Gamit in presence of the Woman Counselor, Gandhinagar. Both these applications had been registered as Application No. 67 of 2020 and Application No. 278 of 2020 respectively. 5.2. His daughter, corpus Gargi gave an application against her parents being Application No. 78 of 2020 on 28.04.2020. Both the applications were investigated by Woman Police Sub-Inspector Ms. A.S.Gamit in presence of the Woman Counselor, Gandhinagar. The statement of the corpus was also recorded who had stated that on 26.04.2017 she married to the respondent no. 4 and she continued to live with her parents and in April, 2020 she joined her in-laws. The moment her parents came to know about their marriage, they went to her in-laws’ residence and abused respondent no.4. Therefore, they have contacted the police on Mobile Number 100 and PCR Van also was sent to her in-laws’ place. She insisted on staying with her in-laws and therefore, her parents and brother had left in dismay. 5.3. The statement of the petitioner also had been recorded which has been signed by him where he admitted that his daughter had married on 26.04.2017 and she had been inquired in presence of Woman Counselor to reveal that there was no force exerted by anyone and she, out of her own volition, chose to marry respondent no.4 and started residing with him. The marriage certificate also had been produced during the course of inquiry and there was nothing unusual or illegal noticed in the conduct of the Respondent no.4 for which this application is filed. 5.4. According to the Police Inspector, Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, the daughter of the present applicant is residing with respondent no.4 at Sector-3, Gandhinagar. We have also noticed that the certificate of Registration of Marriage is of 27.04.2017 and the statement of the corpus is recorded on dated 29.05.2020 and the statement of the present petitioner dated 08.04.2020 clearly reflects that he is a retired Deputy Secretary, Narmada Kalpsar and Water Resources Department. His daughter has studied Civil Engineering and chose to leave parental home on 07.04.2020. On the very next day, statement of hers and that of the applicant have been recorded in presence of Woman Counselor. In his statement he has admitted that in presence of Woman Counselor, her daughter has admitted of having married to respondent no.4 on 26.04.2017 out of her own volition. No force has been exerted to her nor has she been forcibly detained by anyone. In his statement he has admitted that in presence of Woman Counselor, her daughter has admitted of having married to respondent no.4 on 26.04.2017 out of her own volition. No force has been exerted to her nor has she been forcibly detained by anyone. The said statement is signed by the Petitioner after the same was recorded by A.S.I, Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar. 6. Today, the corpus has been produced before us from the District Court, Gandhinagar in presence of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Ms. Solaki. Corpus is an educated girl and has stated in no unclear terms that she is happy to be with her in-laws and her husband both. She has no complaint against them. She has stated this aspect before the Woman Counselor when her father was present. Her parents since are not ready to accept the person of her choice, they go on making the complaints and this application also, according to her, resulted of such annoyance on the part of the applicant. She is unable to pursue her career because of her certificate are lying with her parents. She has shown her grace by acceding to the request of Petitioner of meeting his daughter as was conveyed through learned advocate Mr. Hardik Pandit in whose office the petitioner remained present. We also made a request to learned Additional District and Sessions Judge to mediate between the parties and bring about the amicable settlement as the relationship is such where the daughter would always need warmth and blessings of the parents. The certificates of her studies and other required certificates have been handed over to the daughter at the instance of the Court. The father has chosen to initiate different proceedings to bring back the daughter but, he is not ready to accept that she can marry the person of her own choice. Some of his utterances at the time of leaving the meeting conducted by the learned Additional Sessions judge at the court premise, Gandhinagar, as conveyed to this court by the Learned Judge, we choose not to repeat but can surely say with all restraints at our command that were unwarranted and could not have come from the parents. 7. Some of his utterances at the time of leaving the meeting conducted by the learned Additional Sessions judge at the court premise, Gandhinagar, as conveyed to this court by the Learned Judge, we choose not to repeat but can surely say with all restraints at our command that were unwarranted and could not have come from the parents. 7. Noticing the fact that the petitioner has retired as a Deputy Secretary from the Government of Gujarat and was well aware of not only the law but, also the procedure and has accordingly undertaken all such proceedings soon after the daughter left for the in-laws’ house. He made an application to the police and also met the daughter at her in-laws’ residence and also in the presence of the Woman Counselor and as mentioned above, his own statement on 08.04.2020 clearly mentions that he had met her and had heard her own version that she was not willing to join the parents back and is happy to be with her in-laws. Despite such clear and unambiguous response by the daughter, not only he attempted to move this Court by preferring this application but urgency has been attempted by addressing a communication to the Registrar General by stating therein that since 07.04.2020 the daughter is not allowed to meet the father and all efforts on the part of the petitioner have not been responded even by the police, he is of the fear that her life might be in danger and some unfortunate incident may happen with her, therefore, on urgent basis the matter be listed. 8. These are the grounds which are patently non existent and they are the creation of his own mind. His own version on 08.04.2020 is abundantly clear that he knew very well that the daughter adhered to her decision and the meeting that took place in presence of the Woman Counselor cleared the mist. And pursuant to such meeting arranged by the police, his statement was recorded by A.S.I., Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar which also clearly reflects his satisfaction of having met the daughter and having heard from her own mouth her decision and also her future course of action. There was no earthly reason nor any need at all for any such petition much less of the habeas corpus. There was no earthly reason nor any need at all for any such petition much less of the habeas corpus. The grounds made out in the body of the petition as also the note which has been forwarded to the Registrar General for urgent listing of the matter, appear clearly the attempt to misuse the process of law, to put it mildly. 9. Although, we have chosen not to issue notice in this matter knowing the age of the corpus and had, in essence, conveyed to the learned APP to gather the details from the police machinery which revealed his own version on an application moved to the respondent no.2, and on a safer side, he chose to keep the daughter of his present. It undoubtedly emerges from the entire gamut of facts that it is a sheer and gross misuse of the legal machinery by someone having served at the level of Deputy Secretary of the Government of Gujrat. He is unable to come to the terms that his daughter can marry inter caste, the person of her choice. Unless she plays the tune which he desires, he continues to follow her and her husband legally, without respecting the decision of the girl who is matured and educated, having done her civil engineering. 10. Those who are educated and aware of legal machinery are expected to act in more matured way and any misuse or maneuverings on their parts cannot be accepted lightly, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition by expressing out displeasure and also choosing to impose the cost which shall be a token Cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousands only) which shall be deposited by way of cheque in the name of Registrar (Finance) within two weeks and that amount to be disbursed in favour of the High Court Lawyers’ Library two weeks thereafter. 11. We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Ms. Solanki in conducting mediation and enabling us to conduct this matter from distance through Video conferencing. 12. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.