MOHINDER VIR SINGH Vs. DEEPA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners Mohinder Vir Singh and Master Sidhartha against respondent No.1 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dalhousie with respect to and arising out of an application filed by respondent No.1 before respondent No.2 under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing a search warrant with respect to the alleged wrongful confinement of petitioner No.2 with petitioner No.1.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice it to say that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 had been married to each other, but matrimonial disputes having occurred between then, petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was filed, but later on this petition was converted into a petition for judicial separation. The District Judge, Chamba based on the compromise entered into between the parties passed a decree for judicial separation on 27.9.1992. it is the contention of respondent No.1 that during that period, the parties also got recorded their statements in which some mentioning was made about the custody of petitioner No.2 with respondent No.1 and the terms of such custody as also some arrangement whereby petitioner No.1 was permitted to meet petitioner No.2 while in the custody of respondent No.1.

(3.) In the aforesaid back ground, therefore, application under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that while petitioner No.2 was in the custody of respondent No.1, petitioner No.1 on 30th November, 2002 took away petitioner No.2 from the custody of respondent No.1 and since then the petitioner No.2 has been residing with petitioner No.1. Para 7 of the complaint/application, which appears to be a statement by respondent No.1 with respect to covering the ingredients of Section 97 of the Code of Criminal procedure reads thus: "That the minor son of the complaint is still in the custody of the accused and has been illegally confined in his house at Jalandhar which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant has not been permitted to even speak to the minor on phone or to meet him. In fact, the life of the complainant is under threat as the accused is a wealthy person having many links with the high -ups. As per the agreement the complainant is the only legal and natural guardian of her minor son and has every right to retain his custody, in case the accused feels aggrieved by the said order he is free to move the competent forum for redressal. The act of the accused as such is totally illegal and unlawful."