Kanak Kumar Shrivastava v. The State Of Bihar Through General Of Police, Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2900 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Kanak Kumar Shrivastava, Son of Late Ram Chandra Lal, Resident of Mansagar, P.S.- Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through General of Police, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhabua 4.

The Superintendent of Police, Bhabua 5.

The S.H.O. Bhabua P.S.- Bhabua 6.

Ravindra Kumar Verma, Son of Late Shankar Dev Narayan, Resident of Ward No. 18 Near Pandey Ji Ka Pokhra, Gram- Mansagar, P.S.- Charpokhri, District- Kaimur ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 11-11-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defects in course of the day.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar. It appears on perusal of the writ application that the dispute is between petitioner and his brother-in-law who has been impleaded as Respondent No. 6 in the present writ application over the custody of the minor girl child. It is stated in the writ application that Respondent No. 6 had twin daughters, therefore, he

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2900 of 2025(2) dt.11-11-2025 2/2 expressed his desire to give one of them in adoption to the petitioner and his wife. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his wife accepted the proposal of Respondent No. 6 and adopted one of the daughters of Respondent No. 6.

3. Further statements have been made to say that Respondent No. 6 is now wrongfully claiming the minor child as his daughter and he is not returning her.

4. In the kind of disputes involved between the parties, we are of the considered opinion that a writ in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained. This writ application seems to be misconceived and is dismissed accordingly with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy as may be advised to him in accordance with law. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Sourendra Pandey, J) lekhi/- U