Jang Bahadur v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-1026-2019 Decided on : 09.01.2023 Jang Bahadur . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) This is the petition for seeking issuance of roving criminal writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, for release of the detenue namely 'Anjali', whose date of birth is mentioned as 06.08.2003, d/o Jang Bahadur (petitioner) s/o Om Parkash.

2.

Status report dated 20.10.2022, has been filed by respondent No.1, and para No.9 of the said status report says as under:- "9.

That after one year, on 25.08.2020, the victim was produced before police by the mother of the accused Harish Kumar @ Lokesh and at that time, she was having a child of approx two months. At present the victim and accused Harish Kumar Lokesh are living as husband-wife at the house of the accused Harish Kumar @ Lokesh at Jind. It is further submitted that the accused Harish Lokesh and victim- had filed Criminal Misc. No. M-23048 of 2022 titled Harish Kumar @ Lokesh and another Vs State of Haryana and Others for quashing of case FIR No.271 dated 18.07.2019 u/s 363, 366-A, 212, 120-B, 376(3), 376(2) (N) IPC and 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, Jind, on the basis of compromise between the parties which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court. A copy JAWALA RAM 2023.01.10 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

CRWP-1026-2019 - 2 - of the judgment dated 22.08 2022 is being annexed as Annexure R2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is therefore, humbly prayed that present petition may also be dismissed, being devoid of merits."

3.

As per aforesaid status report, alleged detenue is staying with Harish Kumar @ Lokesh, as his wife, and she has also given birth to a child. 4.

Order of notice of motion was passed on 02.11.2019, for 20.11.2019. Thereafter, petitioner did not appear on 04.08.2021, 02.11.2021, 17.11.2021, 01.02.2022, 03.08.2022, and also on 01.11.2022. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 5.

In these circumstances, this Court has no other option, except to assume that after recovery of the alleged detenue, perhaps petitioner is not interested in pursuing with the present petition, as there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner since long.

Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 09, 2023 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2023.01.10 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.