Sunita Pal v. State & ORS.
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2436/2018 SUNITA PAL ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Mohd. Shahzad, Advocate.
versus STATE & ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for State.
Insp. Virender Kumar, AHTU/ Crime Branch
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
O R D E R
% 05.09.2018
1. The background in which the Petitioner has approached this Court with the present petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, has been set out in some detail in the previous order dated 16th August 2018 and need not be repeated here. This order should be read in continuation of the said order.
2. The Petitioner's daughter Poonam is present before the Court. Her date of birth has been verified as 25th September 1999. Even the Petitioner does not dispute that Poonam is above 18 years of age.
3. Contrary to the Petitioner's apprehension that Poonam may have gone away with one Rahul, Poonam has herself disclosed both to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch as well as in Court today that she has of her own free will married one Hari Om aged about 22 years who is an
original resident of a Village Rahimpur, PS Uchaian, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan and who is at present a security guard working in a Haldiram's outlet in Palam Vihar, Gurugram. After marriage, both she and Hari Om are living in village Fazilpur, Gurugram. Her statement under Section 164 Cr PC has also been recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate where she has reiterated the above facts.
4. On the instructions of Inspector Virender Kumar, AHTU/Crime Branch, Mr. Mehra informs the Court that an attempt was made to arrange a meeting between the Petitioner, Poonam and Hari Om. However, Poonam was not willing to meet her mother.
5. The Petitioner who is present has also been heard. She has to reconcile with the fact that Poonam, as an adult has made her choice and has married a person of her liking. In these circumstances, the Court sees no reason to issue any further directions since it is satisfied that Poonam is not being illegally restrained against her will by anyone. Further, she cannot be compelled to meet her mother, if she is not willing to.
6. The petition is disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018 Bisht