Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangla Ram vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 27 February, 2013
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Sangeet Lodha
D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 2090/2013.
Mangla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
// 1 //
37
D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 2090/2013.
Mangla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
..
Date of Order :: 27th February 2013.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.K. Mehar, Government Counsel.
<><><>
BY THE COURT:
By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus on the averments and allegations that his minor daughter, said to be about 17 years and 10 months of age, has been abducted by the respondent No. 4; and she is in illegal detention. The petitioner has filed an FIR which has been registered at Police Station Samdari, District Barmer bearing number 176/2012.
The petitioner is, however, aware of the pendency of a criminal miscellaneous petition bearing number 3087/2012 in this Court wherein the said FIR has been challenged and wherein, his daughter is one of the petitioners. The averments taken by the petitioner in this regard in paragraph 4 of the present petition are as under:-
"4. That the aforesaid FIR No. 176/2012 has been challenged by filing SB Criminal Petition No. 3087/2012. But surprisingly this petition has been filed by petitioner's minor daughter Hafiya @ Pyari including Jagdish. As a matter of fact Hafiya is not competent to file the Miscellaneous petition but that has intentionally been done at the instance of Jagdish, respondent No. 4 just with a view to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The that as it may. However, the Hon'ble Court state the investigation in that FIR but that stay was operating till 18.2.2013."
It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that his daughter, being minor in age, was not even competent to file D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 2090/2013.
Mangla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
// 2 // the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition but such filing has been at the instance of the respondent No. 4. However, in response to our queries, the learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Arora appearing candidly submits that the present petitioner is a party to the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition pending in this Court; and appearance has been put in the said matter on behalf of the present petitioner. Upon our expressing reservations in entertaining the present petition seeking issuance a writ in the nature of habeas corpus particularly when a Miscellaneous Petition is pending in this Court questioning the FIR filed by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request that the present matter may be adjourned for some time awaiting decision of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
We are neither persuaded on the grounds taken in the petitioner nor with the request for adjournment. It is for the simple reason that when the regular course of law has been put into motion and a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed in this Court; which has been entertained and is pending; and wherein, the petitioner's daughter is said to be one of the petitioners, parallel proceedings co-related with the subject-matter of the said petition are not desirable at all. Moreover, entertaining of the present petition would mean proceeding prima facie on the suggestions of the alleged abduction and alleged minority of the petitioner's daughter, which stand at contradiction to said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition pending in this Court. Every relevant aspect of the matter would, obviously, for the appropriate consideration of the Court when dealing with the petition under D.B. HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 2090/2013.
Mangla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
// 3 // Section 482 Cr.P.C. but, as at the present stage, entertaining of this writ petition would only be creating complications in the matter and even the appropriate consideration and disposal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is likely to be affected. We do not see any reason or justification to permit the petitioner to pre- empt the consideration and decision of the said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Prima facie inferences, if at all to be drawn and assumptions, if at all to be proceeded at, could only be that when the petitioner's daughter has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is prosecuting the same, she cannot be said to be in any illegal detention. It has not been shown that the daughter of the petitioner has levelled any allegation against the respondent No. 4 of any illegal detention in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Viewed from this angle, the present petition could only be considered lacking in the fundamentals of a cause of action to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
Thus, when this petition appears lacking in fundamental competence, we do not feel persuaded, whether to entertain or even to adjourn. Once we are satisfied that the petition as framed and as at the present stage is wholly without substance, no purpose would be served in adjourning the same.
The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Office shall place a copy of this order on the record of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3087/2012. (SANGEET LODHA), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. // MOHAN //