Ram Singh Yadav v. State & ORS.

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 760/2020 RAM SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Mr. Mohd.

Humaid, Advs. with petitioner in person.

versus STATE & ORS.

..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (criminal) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Mr. Divyank Tyagi, Advs. with SI Arun Negi, PS Dabri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 19.03.2020 Issue notice. Mr. Mehra accepts notice on behalf of the State. The petitioner has preferred this petition to seek production of Praveen Bano, who is a friend of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he and Praveen Bano decided to get married. Since they belong to different religions, inasmuch, as the petitioner is Hindu and Praveen Bano is Muslim, they applied for registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The petitioner states that contrary to the judgment of this Court in Pranav Kumar Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of

Delhi, W.P. (C.) No. 748/2009, notice of the said marriage was circulated at the residence of both the parties. Consequently, according to the petitioner, the father of Praveen Bano, namely Sulatan Ali, who is respondent No. 3 and her Brother Haider Ali - respondent No.4 detained Praveen Bano and have not allowed her to contact the petitioner. Praveen Bano has been produced and we have interacted with her in Chamber separately, as well as in the presence of the petitioner. She states that she wishes to marry the petitioner and reside with him as his wife. After she made the statement, we interacted with respondent No.3 Sulatan Ali and counselled him about the fact that both the petitioner and his daughter Praveen Bano are major and entitled to take their decisions, and that he and respondent No.

4 should not take law into their own hands, even if, they are opposed to the said marriage. Respondent No.3 has assured that he shall not create any hindrance, or give any threat either to the petitioner, or to his daughter Praveen Bano. Respondent No. 4 is also present in Court and he too has been counselled not to take the law into his own hands, lest he gets involved in some cases.

Praveen Bano states that she does not want to return to her parental home, and that she would proceed from the Court itself with the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.5 to ensure safe passage to the petitioner and Praveen Bano from the Court to the place of residence of the petitioner. The SHO should ensure that the present address of the petitioner is kept secret and is not disclosed to respondent No.3 and 4, or any other family member of Praveen Bano. We also direct the SHO of the local police station where the petitioner resides, to ensure strict vigil and to provide protection to the petitioner and Praveen Bano to prevent them to coming to

any harm at the hands of respondent No.3 and 4, or any other family member, or any member of the community.

The Mobile phone numbers of the SHO concerned and the Beat Constable of the concerned area shall be provided to both Praveen Bano and to the petitioner, and any calls received thereto shall be attended to on an urgent basis.

The SHO, PS Dabri is directed to call respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and to counsel them - not to take the law into their own hands. The personal belongings of Praveen Bano shall be delivered by respondent No.3 to SHO, PS Dabri today itself and he shall thereafter have them delivered to Praveen Bano, while ensuring secrecy of location of Praveen Bano.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. VIPIN SANGHI, J RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J MARCH 19, 2020 N.Khanna