In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Writ Petition No.95 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:15.4.2009
Mangu
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Suresh Pal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
On second call, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the
petitioner.
The petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature
of Habeas Corpus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to produce Smt. Meena
wife of the petitioner and daughter of respondents No.2 and 3 in this Court
as she is in illegal detention of respondents No.2 to 4.
In the reply filed by Inspector Safi-U-Din, SHO, Police Station
Chandni Bagh, Panipat on behalf of respondents No.1 and 5, it is stated that
ASI Jai Singh visited the house of respondents No.2 to 4 where Mahinder
Singh (respondent No.2), father of alleged detenue Meena and other family
members met him. They got their statements recorded that no marriage of
Meena was solemnized with Mangu (petitioner) as alleged by him. They
further stated that Meena was enticed away by the petitioner and he kept her
Cr. Writ Petition No.95 of 2009
[2]
for some days with him and thereafter she fled from his custody and started
living with them. Now she had gone to the house of her grand-father,
namely, Attar Singh in Village Bhadaipur, District Muzaffarnagar (UP) and
her whereabouts were not known.
In the reply filed by respondents No.2 to 4, it is stated that
Meena is a minor and her date of birth is 5.8.1994 as per her school leaving
certificate. It is stated that the petitioner along with his relatives, namely,
Ishwar Pal, Rajinder Seth, Binder and Gangu had kidnapped the daughter of
respondents No.2 and 3 from the house of her father (respondent No.2) at
Muzaffarnagar. Respondent No.2 visited the local Police Station
Muzaffarnagar many times but the Police had not taken any action. It is
stated that respondents No.2 to 4 are labourers and they are doing their job
in Panipat. It is also stated that no marriage had taken place between the
petitioner and the daughter of respondents No.2 and 3. Even otherwise
Meena being a minor, her marriage was not permissible under the law.
Keeping in view the reply filed and also the fact that no one is
present on behalf of the petitioner on second call, it appears the petitioner is
not interested.
Dismissed.
April 15, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*