Chooramani @ Sheru Prajapati vs State of M.P. & Ors.

We interacted with the corpus and asked her, whether she has any grievance in the matter; whether she knows the petitioner and whether the contention of the petitioner that she wants to stay with him is correct. She refused each and every contention and indicated that she does not know the petitioner and she wants to stay with her parents and she rebutted the statement made by the petitioner in the petition.

This is a case, where originally the writ petition was filed before the learned Single Bench and on 29.11.2016, when the matter came up before the Single Bench, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available under the Family Disputes Redressal System or the Criminal Procedure Code . The order passed by the learned Writ Court on 29.11.2016 reads as under :

"Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner pays for withdrawal of the petition with a liberty to take recourse of provisions of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 or that of Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 for redressal of the grievance as sought in this petition.

Prayer allowed.

Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty.

C.c as per rules."

The petitioner by bringing on record an agreement of marriage and by producing certain telephonic conversation, tried to indicate this Court that by an agreement, the petitioner and the corpus have been married, she is being illegally detained and, therefore, the Writ Court committed an error in dismissing the writ petition and insisting upon the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the remedy available under the Family Disputes Redressal System or the Criminal Procedure Code .

Taking note of all these factors, inspite of serious objections raised by Shri Swapnil Ganguly during the last date of hearing, we directed the Superintendent of Police Satna to produce the corpus and today the corpus has been produced along with the three officers of the State and as indicated herein above, the corpus denies the assertions made in the writ petition and says that she does not know the petitioner.

It''s a case, where, prima-facie we find that the writ jurisdiction of this Court is misused by the petitioner and even after the petition

was dismissed by the learned Writ Court, instead of taking recourse to the remedy available, again the valuable time of this Court is wasted and the officers have been compelled to come from Satna with the corpus. All these happened only because of the insistence of the petitioner and the act of the petitioner which is now found to be incorrect and falsified, therefore, it''s a case, where the petitioner has misused the process of law and jurisdiction of this Court, should pay cost to the State Exchequer for the expenses incurred by them in producing the corpus from Satna.

Accordingly, we dismiss this writ appeal with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), which should be paid by the petitioner and deposited in the office of the Superintendent of Police Satna within a period of 10 days'' from today.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.