Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Magaram vs State & Anr on 28 March, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1818 / 2011
Magaram s/o Ghesa Ram, aged about 35 years, resident of Village
Karadi, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Jai Shree @ Mera Devi w/o Magaram, d/o Mularam, at present
r/o Bhemaliya, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.
Mr.N.K.Acharya, Mr.N.K.Choudhary, Mr.Rohit
Gehlot.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 28/03/2017
1. This criminal misc.petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.07.2011 in criminal case/Complaint No.10/2011 application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. passed by Sub Divisional Officer/Magistrate, Marwar Junction, District Pali allowing the application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant/non-petitioner No.2 and issued warrant of search for custody of Master Santosh.
2. The order of the concerned authority dated 28.07.2011 does not carry any meaning at this stage, as it is apparent that the child, Santosh has already attained the age of 16 years. The petitioner and his wife were having this alone child, who by virtue of an interim order of this Court dated 21.09.2011 remains in the (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1818/2011] custody of his father, who is the present petitioner.
3. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the child is doing well and is hale and hearty in the custody of his father.
4. In light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it proper to quash and set aside the order dated 28.07.2011 passed on the application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. as the same has lost its significance at this stage. However, in case the mother of the child or the child himself are interested to meet each other, they shall be at liberty to do so by adopting the appropriate legal recourse. It is further made clear that this order shall not prejudice the rights of the mother or the child to meet or see or live with each other. The child having attained the age of 16 years by now, has sufficient maturity of mind to decide regarding his future relationship with his parents, and more particularly, with the mother and he shall be at liberty to do so.
5. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc.petition stands disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-