Pramod Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (HC) No. 10 of 2016 Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri S. K. Gupta, Aged About 35 Years R/o Jamnipali, Thana Jamnipali, Civil & Revenue Distt. Korba, (Chattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Grih Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 2.

District Magistrate, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 3.

Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 4.

Thana Prabhari, Police Thana, City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 5.

Smt. Harpreet Gupta @ Harpreet Chhabara, W/o Pramod Kumar Gupta, D/o Kanwaljeet Singh Chhabara, R/o Makan No. 24/ 393, Medical Complex, Telipara, Ward No. 24, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 6.

Kanwaljeet Singh Chhabara, S/o S. Chhabara, R/o Makan No. 24/ 393, Medical Complex, Telipara, Ward No. 24, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Petitioner- Pramod Kumar Gupta along with Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents 1 to 4. Shri Ishaq Khalkho, Inspector, P.S. City Kotwali, Bilaspur is present in person. Respondents- 5, Smt. Harpreet and Respondent-6, Kanwaljeet Singh Chhabara along with Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate.

ORDER

Per P. Diwaker, J 18/07/2016 1.

With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2.

This is a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner alleging that father of his wife has made her captive in his house.

3.

On a specific query made by this Court to respondent 5, who happens to be the wife of the petitioner, she stated that there is no pressure of any sort on her either by her father or anyone else and she is living in her parents' house at her own volition. She further asserted that she is not at all willing to live in the company of the petitioner. Even, father of respondent 5 has stated the same thing like his daughter (respondent 5). During hearing of the case, petitioner has also asked a specific question to respondent 5 as to whether she is willing to live with him, respondent 5 has flatly refused to go along with the petitioner. 4.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing remains in the petition to be adjudicated upon. 5.

Consequently, the Writ Petition(HC) is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge Judge sunita