DILIP SINGH GURJAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No.4310/2012 (Habeas Corpus).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4-Mahendra Singh filed writ petition No.4310/2012 (Habeas Corpus) for production of her minor daughter Ku. Seema before this Court who is in the wrongful confinement of appellant (respondent No.4 before the writ Court). She was missing since 11.10.11. Report of the incident was lodged at police Station, Bhanwarpura, Distt. Gwalior and a case under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC has been registered. In his return, the appellant submitted that Ku.Seema was major and he got married with her with her free consent under the Arya Samaj customs. It is further submitted that appellant and Ku.Seema had filed a writ petition No.1998/2012 and vide order dated 28.3.2012 passed in the writ petition this Court granted them protection considering the ossification report of Ku.Seema. Appellant had filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing the criminal case registered against him and this Court after hearing the parties, directed the appellant to approach the Investigating Officer along with all the documents and proofs showing his innocence vide order dated 27/7/12. Thereafter, the police authorities got the ossification test of Ku.Seema conducted and it was found that Ku.Seema was major. It is submitted that police authorities have not submitted the ossification report along with the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that writ petition filed by respondent No.4 came up for hearing on 27.2.13 and this Court holding that Ku.Seema is minor, handed over her custody to respondent No.4. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this writ appeal.

(3.) It is submitted by Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant, that the order passed by learned Single Bench is contrary to law, and therefore, deserves to be set aside. The Hon'ble Writ Court has not considered the fact that the mark-sheet submitted by respondent No.4 is suspicious. No inquiry about the age of Ku.Seema has been held. It is further submitted that life of Ku.Seema is not safe in the custody of respondent No.4. It is prayed that order dated 27.2.13 be set aside and custody of Ku. Seema be given to him. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Ku.Seema is minor, therefore her custody has rightly been handed over to her father who is her natural guardian.