KHURSHID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Khurshid son of Kabir has filed this petition seeking writ of habeas corpus on the ground that respondents No. 11 to 14 have forcibly kidnapped his wife named Amina on 02.11.2011 with the help of police persons i.e. respondents No. 6 to 10. It is averred in the petition that on 02.11.2011, early in the morning his wife, Amina, was forcibly kidnapped by accused persons i.e. respondents No. 6 to 14 by entering his house. It is stated that at the time of being kidnapped, Amina was reciting Kuran Sharif. Respondents No. 11 to 14 are none other than real brothers of Amina. As per the petitioner, her brother did in order to get money from the petitioner as they are not happy with the marriage of the petitioner with Amina. It is also mentioned that fake FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner has also made allegation against the police personnel for demanding money. This demand was made through telephone calls. Even threats were also advanced if the money is not paid. It is alleged that the petitioner was told that his entire family would be involved in a criminal case. The petitioner claims to have married Amina on 04.04.2011 according to the Muslim rites and ceremonies and that is how this entire incident of kidnapping, abduction etc. is narrated and ultimately leading to filing of the present petition.

(2.) Concerned with such serious allegations made, this Court issued notice of motion on 04.11.2011. State counsel appeared and sought time to file reply. Remaining respondents were not served and fresh notices were, accordingly, issued to them. Respondents No. 10 to 14 were even not served by the adjourned date. While adjourning the case, the directions were issued that Amina be produced before the Court. It is, thereafter, the counsel had appeared on behalf of respondents No. 11 to 14.

(3.) Reply on behalf of the officials respondents was also filed and was taken on record. The case was adjourned for filing reply on behalf of the remaining respondents. Ultimately, the case came up for hearing before this Court on 02.01.2012. The Court took a very serious note of the progress of the case. It was noticed that respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. S.P. District Mewat and S.P. Distict Palwal were to procure the presence of Amina, but they had not been able to do so. At that stage, the Investigating Officer, who had come to assist the State counsel had pointed out that Amina was being kept in the custody of the petitioner. The Court went to the extent of observing that even if that be so, the direction was to procure the presence of Amina and same ought to have been complied. Finding that respondents No. 2 and 3 had failed to obey the directions of this Court, notice was issued to them as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Both the SPs were directed to procure the presence of Amina before this Court on the next date of hearing.