ISHMAIL JUMA ODHEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aditya Pancholi, learned advocate for Ms. Sangita Nandankar, learned advocate for the petitioner. According to his submission, the major daughter aged 24 years, respondent no.4 herein, is found missing on early morning of 2/3/2023 for which missing complaint is registered with Mandvi Police Station, District Kutch. He has further submitted that respondent no.3 herein, who is also a distant relative and hardcore criminal is suspected to have confined her. He has further submitted that even the wife of respondent no.3 herein has also filed a complaint on the very day i.e. 2/3/2023 with S.P. Kutch, West Region at Bhuj mentioning therein that her husband is having relations with respondent no.4 herein and she being subjected to cruelty since 27/2/2023, she is being threatened of dire consequence if she objects to their relationship. It is further mentioned in the complaint made to S.P. Kutch that she has been driven out of the house, and therefore, she went to Mandvi Police Station but since her husband was inside the Police Station, she could not dare to file the complaint as she was threatened by him at the Police Station, and therefore, he has submitted that this Court may entertain this petition and direct respondent no.2 to produce the corpus before this Court.

(2.) Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and going through the documents annexed with the petition, it emerges that respondent no.4 i.e. daughter of the petitioner, is having relationship with respondent no.3 herein, who may be a ranked criminal or even a distant relative of the petitioner. We have asked the learned advocate for the petitioner to show us the averments made in the petition to the effect that whether she has been abducted by respondent no.3 from legal custody of the father and /or she has been illegally confined by him. However, except bare words, that too oral, there appears no assertion on both these counts. For exercising jurisdiction under the writ of habeas corpus, it is the most relevant ingredient to entertain the same, which is missing in the present petition.

(3.) Respondent no.4 - Nazninbanu Ismail Odheja, daughter of the petitioner is claimed to be aged about 24 years, and therefore, major person may have willingly left the house of the father, may be to join the company of respondent no.3 herein, despite great dislike of the father. Hence, this Court cannot entertain such petition, that too, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing writ of habeas corpus. Hence, this petition is rejected.