High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

The vs Unknown on 16 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
The vs Unknown on 16 December, 2008
                                     1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                         Crl. Writ No. 891 of 2008
                         Date of Decision: 16.12.2008.
                                    ***
BY POST


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

Present:-   Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab.

            Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate

            Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate.
            ***

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

The petitioner-complainant Kashmir Singh sent a telegram to
the effect that on 16.9.2008 Kulwinder Kaur daughter of Gurnam Singh had
come to her house but she was forcibly picked up by her father Gurnam
singh, brothers Sahab singh and Harjinder singh along with 8-9 person and
now he apprehend danger to her from the said persons.

The telegram was treated as criminal writ petition in the nature
of habeas corpus.

The State though initially filed a reply along with statements of
Sahab Singh that Kulwinder Kaur is with him, but in the additional affidavit
so annexed with the statement of Gurnam singh, the father, he stated that
Kulwinder Kaur had gone away from the house and earlier also when the
police had come to his house, his son was not present in the house.
Statements of other respectables of the village i.e. Harjinder singh, Balkar
Singh, Jaswinder singh, Jorawar Singh, Ajit Singh, Malkiat Singh have also
been annexed to urge that from their statements it is inferred that Kulwinder
Kaur left the house on 21.5.2008 without intimation and has not returned
home.

Heard.

The State has also placed on record copy of order dated
21.11.2008 passed in Crl. Writ Petition No.932 of 2008 wherein Sukhchain
Singh son of Kashmir Singh (present complainant-petitioner) sought the
2

same relief against the father and brothers of said Kulwinder Kaur, wherein
similar stand was taken by the father and brothers and it was ordered that no
further action is called for and the writ petition was dismissed with the
liberty to the parties to approach the police authorities for redressal of
grievance, if any, by making a representation.

In view of this, since a liberty has already been given to the
parties in the Crl. Writ Petition filed on the same set of facts, nothing
survives for adjudication in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly
dismissed.

(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
December 16,2008
Jiten