KUMARI NIRMALA CHAUHAN AND ANR. Vs. VINOD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by Kumari Nirmala Chauhan and Shrimati Belmati Chauhan under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Ss. 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that a Criminal complaint under Ss. 365, 366, 498 and 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted by the Respondent Vinod Sharma against the two Petitioners and Moti Ram Chauhan and Ram Gopal Singh. It was alleged in the complaint that Kumari Kalpana Chauhan grand -daughter of the accused Petitioner No. 2 and a niece of the accused Petitioner No. 1, was reading in S.D.B. College, Simla, and sometimes in 1971 onwards she developed intimacy with the Respondent Vinod Sharma. Several letters exhibiting deep affection between them were exchanged between the parties and some of the letters were produced along with the complaint. It was alleged that the matter came to such a climax that on 18 -11 -1972 Kumari Kalpana Chauhan performed marriage with the Respondent at Karaida Temple on the Prospects Hill, Simla. One Pt. Satya Parkash performed the marriage between them. Several friends of either party were present at that occasion. In token thereof a photograph was taken and garlands were exchanged by the newly married.

(2.) The case of Vinod Sharma was that Kumari Kalpana Chauhan informed the Petitioner No. 1 on that very day and told her of her marriage with the Respondent. The Petitioner No. 1 thereafter invited them at the Quality restaurant where they went along with a few friends. The two Petitioners were present at the Quality restaurant. After giving treatment to Kalpana Chauhan and the Respondent, the two Petitioners asked Kalpana Chauhan to go with them to their house so that the fact regarding marriage could be divulged to the family. The Respondents case was that the two Petitioners thereafter brought Kalpana Chauhan to their house, but detained her thereafter. The other two accused Moti Ram Chauhan and Ram Gopal Singh subsequently played their part by abetting the two Petitioners from concealing Kalpana Chauhan and detained her from the company of the Respondent.

(3.) After suffering such a forced separation from Kalpana Chauhan, the Respondent came to High Court with a petition under Sec. 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 226 of the Constitution. In that proceeding under habeas corpus, Kalpana Chauhan was produced in Court, and a Division Bench recorded her statement. However, it was found that she was not being detained by these accused without her consent and that she was free to move out; the petition under habeas corpus was not pursued and the same was dismissed. Thereafter the present complaint was filed by Vinod Sharma against the four accused including the two Petitioners for the respective offences.