ARTI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have before us Smt. Arti one of the petitioners who was directed to be produced before us by our earlier order dated 22.5.2012. We have talked to her and have attempted to gather informations regarding incidents or developments which had occurred after Smt. Arti was put into the custody of her father Sri Mahendra Singh, respondent No.4. We feel incline to speak something on the order passed by the Deputy District Magistrate/S.D.M., Rampur Maniharan,District Saharanpur dated 26.4.2012 by which he directed the Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Meerut to hand over the custody of Smt. Arti to her father Sri Mahendra Singh and her mother Smt. Kamla who had sworn an affidavit assuring the learned S.D.M. about the security concerns of that particular officer.

(2.) We want to have a glance of some of the facts leading to the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Smt. Arti appeared before the Officer-in-charge of Nanauta Police Station with complaint against her parents and supposed threat to her life at their hands, as appears from the order passed by the S.D.M. above named on 30.12.2011. Accordingly, the lady petitioner was put into custody of Superintendent, Mahila Sarnalaya, Meerut. Subsequently, claims were made by the parents of petitioner Smt. Arti as also by the co-petitioner Lokesh who claimed himself to be the husband of petitioner Smt. Arti. The learned S.D.M., Rampur Maniharan, considering that the lady was not aged about 18 years or above on the day she had walked out of her parents' house, inspite of having found that the lady had fallen in love for petitioner Lokesh and had on that count walked out her parents' house out of her own free will, was not inclined to set the petitioner Smt. Arti free. He, as such, went into the question of her age and after considering so many aspects as may appear from the impugned order dated 26.4.2012 directed the lady petitioner to put into the custody of her parents.

(3.) We have already noted that the lady petitioner had fallen in love for co-petitioner Lokesh and what appears to us is that she had herself married petitioner Lokesh in some temple. We are conscious of the fact that in view of her statement which was made earlier during the proceedings before the learned S.D.M., Rampur Maniharan, there could not be any question of offence being constituted at any rate. The question of custody might have been decided by the appropriate authority only when the case of petitioner Smt. Arti being wrongfully confined by any person could have been made out. We have no hesitation in pointing out to S.D.M., Rampur Maniharan, that he did not have a jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, inasmuch as, his jurisdiction was clearly cut out by Section 97 Cr.P.C. that if he had the reason to believe that any person was confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, he may issue a search warrant and direct it to be addressed to any person for search of the wrongfully confined person and if the person so wrongful confined, was to be produced before him in execution of the search warrant. If it had been a case of Smt. Arti being wrongfully confined, then only the matter would have created a jurisdiction into the S.D.M. above said to proceed in the matter and that too when such a wrongful confinement could have constituted an offence.