Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh vs . on 7 April, 2014
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
DB Habeas Corpus Petition NO.2389/2014
157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
Ramesh
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.2389/2014
DATE OF ORDER: 7th April 2014.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. K. MATHUR
Mr. L.K. Ramdhari, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Vyas, Government Counsel.
Ms. Anjana Sukhwal, CO, (Rural) Pali with Ms. Bhawana, Lady Con-
stable, Belt No.1435, Police Station Rohat.
<><><>
Reportable BY THE COURT: (Per Dinesh Maheshwari,J.)
In this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, on 02.04.2014, a co-ordinate Bench issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why a direction for producing the alleged detenu be not issued; and the learned Government Counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 3.
Today, the alleged detenu, the wife of the petitioner and daughter of the respondent No.4, has been produced before us by the Circle Officer (Rural), Pali. We have conferred with the alleged detenu in camera and, thereafter, in the presence of all concerned and have also gone through the record.
After taking into comprehension all the facts and circum- stances, we are clearly of the view that the present one has been a totally baseless and rather unwarranted petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus; and for the reason of this petition, wife of the peti-
DB Habeas Corpus Petition NO.2389/2014 tioner, who is carrying advanced pregnancy, has been unnecessarily brought before the Court.
Perusal of the record makes out that earlier, the proceedings under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were adopted by the father of the alleged detenu, who is arrayed as respondent No.4 herein. The present petitioner was the non-applicant No.1 in those proceedings. The allegations in those proceedings had been about illegal confinement of the daughter of the applicant by the present petitioner and his parents.
On 21.02.2014, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rohat ('SDM'), issued the process in the said proceedings under Section 97 Cr.P.C.; and directed the SHO, Police Station, Rohat to search out the al- leged detenu and to produce her before him. She was produced be- fore the SDM on 24.02.2014; and the SDM proceeded to record her statements.
Thereafter, in his order dated 24.02.2014, the learned SDM noticed the relevant features of the case that the alleged detenu was a married lady, major in age; that at the first instance, she expressed her desire to go with her parents but then, also suggested her desire to go with her husband; and that she was not doing well and ap- peared to be suffering from ailments. Then, in view of apparently in- consistent and incoherent statements made by her, the learned SDM found it rather difficult to arrive at the specific conclusion about her desire. However, looking to the fact that she is major in age, the learned SDM considered it just and proper that she be restored to her liberty; and be allowed to go to the place of her choice. Accord- ingly, the directions were issued to the Police Officers concerned to ensure her safe passage to the destination of her choice.
DB Habeas Corpus Petition NO.2389/2014 It appears that after the order aforesaid, the wife of the peti- tioner expressed her desire to go to the place of her parents where- upon, the Police Officers concerned carried out her desire and es- corted her to the parents' place.
About a month after his wife had, thus, gone to her parent's house, the petitioner chose to file this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on 27.03.2014 while suggesting as if his legally wed- ded wife was under detention; and was not being searched out de- spite his representations.
We find the suggestions, as made in this writ petition, funda- mentally baseless and rather vexatious, particularly with reference to the detailed orders dated 21.02.2014 and 24.02.2014, as passed by the SDM in the proceedings under Section 97 Cr.P.C. (Annex.4). Even at the time of filing of this petition it was known to the writ peti- tioner that his wife was residing with her parents of her own free-will and there was no question of any illegal detention. She, of course, made the statement once before the SDM expressing desire to go with her husband but then, she also expressed her desire to go to her parents' house. In the circumstances, the learned SDM left it open for her to go to the destination of her choice and issued neces- sary directions to the concerned Police Officers.
From what she has submitted before us today it is but appar- ent that she has gone to the parents' house of her own free-will; and in compliance of the requirements of the orders passed by the SDM, the Police Officers ensured her reaching the parent's place. Viewed from any angle, it had not been a case of any illegal detention or confinement and hence, in our view, there was no justification what- soever that the petitioner has invoked the habeas corpus writ juris- diction of this Court.
DB Habeas Corpus Petition NO.2389/2014 The attempt on the part of the petitioner in filing this unneces- sary and vexatious petition has led to an entirely disquieting state of affairs that the wife of the petitioner, who is living with her parents of her own free-will, has been needlessly brought this Court. Signifi- cantly, she is carrying advanced pregnancy and this fact was also specifically within the knowledge of the petitioner, as mentioned in the petition itself. At the given stage and status, in our view, this writ petition has been an entirely unjustified attempt on the part of the pe- titioner to harass and pressure his wife, as also the wife's parental family.
It appears that the petitioner and his wife belong to the weak- er sections of society. In any case, the petitioner definitely owes the duty towards his wife and ought to make allowance for her mainte- nance.
In the totality of the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs and the amount of costs deserve to be provided to the wife of the petitioner, who has unnecessarily been produced before us only because of this false and vexatious petition. We would also leave it open for her to take recourse to other appropriate remedies, if so advised and if so chosen.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), payable by the petitioner to his wife, i.e., the daughter of the respondent No.4, who has been pro- duced before us today. It shall be required of the petitioner to deposit this amount of costs within 30 days from today with the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Rohat, who shall, on deposit, ensure dis- bursement of this amount to the wife of the petitioner. If the amount is not deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from today, it shall DB Habeas Corpus Petition NO.2389/2014 be required of the SDM concerned to get this order executed and to recover the amount; and for that matter, it shall be permissible for him to issue coercive process too, if so required.
So far the wife of the petitioner is concerned, it shall be re- quired of the CO concerned to ensure her safe passage to the desti- nation of her choice.
(V.K. MATHUR),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. cpgoyal/-