Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nand Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 21 November, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3142/2016
Nand Kanwar W/o Late Yadunath Singh aged 60 years,
R/o Village Tarpura, PS Dadia, District Sikar.
--- Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Bhagirath Singh S/o Late Shiv Singh by caste Rajput,
aged about 50 years, R/o Bassi Ka Bas Kalwa Bada,
Tehsil and Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
--- Respondents
DATE OF ORDER ::: 21st November , 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, PP for the State.
In this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner Nand Kanwar assailed the impugned order dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 104/2016 (CIS No. 106/2016) (Bhagirath Singh vs. Nand Kanwar And Anr.) whereby learned Revisional Court allowed the revision petition of Bhagirath Singh and quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 18.05.2016 and 30.05.2016 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikar in Case no. 202/2016 under Section 97, 98, 99 and 100 Cr.P.C.
2
The brief facts of the case are that present petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 97, 98, 99 and 100 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikar for issuing search warrant of her maternal-grand daughter Neetu Kanwar stating that after demise of his daughter Vinod Kanwar married with the respondent No.- 2 Bhagirath Singh. The said Neetu Kanwar was residing with petitioner and he was maintaining her. Respondent No.- 2 entered into second marriage after death of mother of Neetu Kanwar. It was stating that respondent No- 2 forcibly taken away Neetu Kanwar on 05.05.2016 and he is willing to marry her with someone against her wish, where as Neetu Kanwar is adult as per her Date of Birth 15.05.1997 and she cannot be kept under detention contrary to her wishes and thus prayed that a search warrant be issued and Neetu Kanwar may be rescued.
On which learned sub Divisional Magistrate issued search warrant vide order dated 18.05.2016 and 30.05.2016 which were challenged before learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in revision petition by respondent no.- 2 father of Neetu Kanwar which was allowed and impugned orders of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate were quashed and set aside.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar submits that Neetu Kanwar was residing in guardianship of petitioner and was taken away from her custody as such 3 learned Sub Divisional Magistrate rightly issued search warrant which was wrongly quashed and set aside by the Revisional court, therefore, orders of learned Revisional court may be quashed and set aside.
Per contra learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali supported the impugned order dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sikar.
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and went through the impugned orders.
From the perusal of impugned order dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, it reveals that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Makrana, District Nagaur issued search warrant under Section 97, 98, 99 and 100 Cr.P.C. in pursuance of this search warrant Shivani Rathore @ Neetu Kanwar was recovered by Mr. Yaseen Khan, Head Constable No. 1538 and Mr. Vikas, Constable No. 691 of Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur on 05.05.2016. Thereafter she was produced before learned sub Divisional Magistrate, Makrana, therefore, the custody of Neetu Kanwar was taken in pursuance of search warrant issued by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot be said illegal and pending proceedings before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Makrana, initiation of parallel proceedings of same type under Section 97, 98, 99 and 100 Cr.P.C. before learned SDM, Sikar regarding same person is abuse of process of Court, considering this fact learned 4 Revisional Court allowed the revision petition which does not require any interference and this misc. petition devoids merit which is hereby dismissed.
[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.
Simple Kumawat/30