Gulab Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP No.1333 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 25, 2016 Gulab Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.S.S.Nara, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has filed this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and for appointment of a Warrant Officer to search for the detenue namely Rajani daugther of Jai Pal.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 appeared and filed the replies.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Vineet Gulati 2016.10.27 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh The detenue is also present in the Court, who stated that she is

CRWP No.1333 of 2016 -2residing with her parents as per her own wish and she has no concern with the present petitioner Gulab Singh. She also stated that she has not been kept confined illegally by her parents and she wants to go to her house with her parents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was being informed by the detenue that she has been confined illegally. Earlier the engagement of the detenue with the present petitioner took place. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 argued that an application for taking action has already been given to the police against the present petitioner for demand of dowry and he argued that the present petition has been filed just to harass the detenue and private respondents. In view of the fact that detenue is residing with her parents and the petitioner has no relation with the detenue and in view of the fact that the present petition has been filed only for the purpose of harassing the detenue and private respondent, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed with costs of `25,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit `25,000/- as costs, with the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month, otherwise, learned Registrar General of this Court will initiate action, as per law, for recovery of this amount.

October 25, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.10.27 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh