RAJINDER SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of Harjinder Kaur daughter of respondent No. 1 Balwant Singh. According to the petitioner the said Harjinder Kaur is a major and he married her on 20.6.99 against the wishes of the parents of the girl. According to him the father and the brothers of the girl took her away and kept her in wrongful confinement. Respondent No. 1 denied the marriage but according to him the petitioner took away the girl and kept her in his custody and in order to avoid the criminal proceedings initiated by him he filed this petition. By an order dated 7.7.199, I directed the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to produce the girl. On 14.7.1999 the learned counsel made a specific statement, that the girl was not with respondent Nos. 1 to 4 whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the girl was with respondent Nos. 1 to 4. I therefore directed the SHO,PS City Tarn Taran to take the custody of the girl Harjinder Kaur wherever she was and produce her before this Court on 27.7.99 but the police could not produce her. SHO was present in Court on 27.7.1999 and stated that the criminal case u/ss 363/366 IPC was registered against the petitioner and others and the investigation into the same has been going on. On 23.8.99 the SSP was directed to enquire into the allegations of disappearance of Harjinder Kaur and after obtaining such warrants from the concerned Magistrate to make the search of the girl at the premises of the petitioner as well as that of the respondents. On 14.9.99 the learned PP stated that the girl has not yet been recovered and efforts are being made to recover the girl. Today the learned DAG stated that search has been conducted both at the premises of the petitioner and the respondents but the girl was not found at either of the places. Even now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the girl is with her parents and brothers whereas the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner kept the girl in illegal custody. The fact remains that the girl is not yet traced. According to the petitioner he married the girl Harjinder Kaur who according to him is a major.

(2.) In these circumstances and in view of the peculiar facts of the case I direct the SDJM Tarn Taran to make the enquiry on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the sides whether the petitioner was married to Harjinder Kaur and whether she is a major and in whose custody the girl is. Both the parties are allowed to adduce evidence before him. The parties are directed to appear before the SDJM on 22.11.99. Basing on his findings the learned Magistrate is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.