BABLI SHARMA Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of Indian for quashing of the order dated 23.12.1993 (Annexure P-I) vide which, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur issued search warrants for production of petitioner No.1 (Babli Sharma) under Section 97, Cr. P.C. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1 is major and her date of birth as per certificate issued by Government High School, Worsola, Gurdaspur is 30.4.1975. As per certificate she was aged about 18 years and 8 months at the time when search warrants for her production were issued. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioner No. 1 Babli Sharma has married Bikramjit Singh (petitioner No. 2) son of Rattan Singh of her own accord and is residing with her husband Bikramjit Singh.

(2.) Previous to this, petitioner had filed revision petition under Section 397, Cr. P.C. against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who recorded the statement of Babli Sharma, petitioner No. 1 on 25.1.1994. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, She had stated that she was living with petitioner No. 2 of her own accord after she had married him in Gurudwara Bath Sahib by Anand Karaj Ceremony. After recording her statement, Additional Sessions Judge directed petitioner No. 1, Babli Sharma to appear in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur for getting her statement recorded so that she could be allowed to go according to her whims. Subsequently, vide order dated 5.3.1994, Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a party before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and therefore, she was not competent to file the revision petition. This order has been impugned herein this criminal writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that this petition deserves to succeed. The question before the Additional Sessions Judge, GurdaSpur, was as to whether petitioner No. 1 who at the relevant time was major, was in illegal confinement or not. She having appeared on 25.1.1994 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur and gave her statement that she is living with petitioner No. 2 and had married him in Gurudwara Bath Sahib, the Additional Sessions Judge ought to have cancelled the search warrants which had been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 97, Cr. P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, was not justified in law in dismissing the petition on the ground that she was not a party before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Search warrants had been issued to search petitioner No. 1 she had the locus standi to file revision petition for getting the warrants cancelled.