Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/874/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 874 of 2011
=========================================================
CHIRAG
RAJENDRAKUMAR PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 18/04/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
The
petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus
against respondent Nos.3 and 4 alleging that respondent No.2- corpus
is unauthorizedly detained/confined by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. In
this context, it may be recorded that the petitioner had preferred
proceedings under Section 97 of Cr.PC where the corpus has given a
statement before Judicial Magistrate, Visnagar on 29.1.2011 to the
effect that she has not been confined by her father. She denies the
factum of marriage. She has gone to the extent of saying that she
does not know Chiragkumar Rajendrakumar, the petitioner herein. She
has stated that she is staying with her parents peacefully and she
has no difficulty over there. She wanted to go and stay with her
parents.
2.1 This
order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a revision
application under Section 397 of Cr.PC before the Sessions Court at
Mehsana. The said revision application came to be dismissed by
judgment and order dated 21.2.2011. That order was challenged before
this Court by preferring Special Criminal Application No.492 of 2011,
which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a
habeas corpus petition. While permitting the withdrawal it was
observed that withdrawal will not come in the way of the petitioner
while deciding habeas corpus petition that may be filed by the
petitioner before competent Court. This order was passed on 6.4.2011
(Annexure-K).
3. Now,
today the petitioner has approached with this petition on the ground
that when the order was passed by the learned Magistrate after
recording statement of the corpus, the petitioner was not present
and, therefore, principles of natural justice have been violated. The
right to challenge this was exercised by the petitioner by preferring
revision application before a Sessions Court and then in Special
Criminal Application before this Court. He failed before the Sessions
Court and withdrew the petition before the learned Single Judge. This
Court, while examining a petition for writ of habeas corpus, would
not examine the question that is raised by the petitioner,
particularly when he has given up the dispute before the learned
Single Judge in Special Criminal Application.
4. Apart
from the above aspect, this Court has no material to accept the
allegation made that the corpus is unlawfully detained/confined by
her parents. Bald allegations falsified by statement of the corpus
before a competent judicial authority would be of no consequence and
cannot be accepted to be acted upon.
5. The
petition, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J.)
zgs/-
Top