AMIT KUMAR MANGHNANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus and also seeking a direction to the Police to conduct proper and independent enquiry to the facts of the present case.

(2.) Petitioner's plea is that he married Pooja Manghnani (Pooja Jasuja) on 04.12.2017 in a ceremonial marriage in the Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur and such marriage was also included in the Register of Marriages maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. His plea is that thereafter the said person was taken away by her relatives to Odisha and now that female has instituted an FIR charging the Petitioner with offences punishable under different counts under the Indian Penal Code . He also submits that she has instituted a suit in a Court in Odisha seeking a declaration that there is no valid marriage as between the Petitioner and her.

(3.) While the Petitioner continues to assert that the lodging of the FIR and the institution of the aforenoted civil suit are result of instigation by the parents and other relatives of the said female, we are not inclined to take cognizance of this matter in writ jurisdiction. For one thing, the jurisdiction for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or for any direction to have an appropriate investigation conducted by the Police, cannot be had in the fact situation in hand. That position notwithstanding, defences available to the Petitioner in the civil suit in the Odisha Court are not to be considered by us to give him any relief in the form of a caveat against that litigation. We also cannot, in this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, deal with this application as one for anticipatory bail against arrest following the lodgment of the FIR.