High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/3150/2018

Santosh Mishra & ANR. v. State & ORS.

2018-10-12Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vinod Goel2 pages

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3150/2018 SANTOSH MISHRA & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Hari Kishan, Advocate.

versus STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Chaitanya, Advocate with Insp. Surinder Singh Chahal, SI Prem Raj, PS Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R

% 12.10.2018

1. The Petitioner approached this Court concerning his daughter, Mahima Mishra, having gone missing since 22nd September, 2018.

2. On receipt of an advance copy of the petition, the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station (PS) Vijay Vihar, Delhi filed status report dated 11th October, 2012 wherein inter alia it is stated that the Petitioner's daughter came to the PS along with one Akash on 24th September, 2018 and informed the SHO that she had willingly left home and married Akash of her own will and now wants to live with him. According to the SHO, the Petitioner as well as the parents of Akash were called to the PS and both families jointly discussed the matter.

3. Mahima gave a written request that she wants to go with her husband. Mahima also produced a copy of the marriage certificate showing that she

and Akash were married at Arya Samaj Marriage Vedic Mandal, Rohini. This was verified on 10th October, 2018 and found to be correct.

4. Mahima and Akash, as adults, have made this decision of their own accord. The SHO further notes in the status report that the missing reports lodged have since been cancelled.

5. The question of entertaining the present petition does not arise in the above circumstances where the Petitioner's daughter is an adult, has left her home of her own free will and married Akash and has clearly stated that she wants to live with him.

6. Counsel for the Petitioner then urged that this Court should permit the parents of Mahima to meet Mahima and Akash either in the Court or in the PS for at least five minutes. Both Akash and Mahima present in the Court have declined to meet her parents. The Court is of the view that after some time has passed, it will be open to the SHO, at the request of the Petitioner, to try and arrange for a meeting subject of course to Mahima and Akash agreeing to the said meeting.

7. No further directions are called for. The petition is dismissed.

8. Order dasti.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

VINOD GOEL, J.

OCTOBER 12, 2018 "sandeep"