Raghuveer Kumar Soni vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to protect the life of unborn child of petitioner, who is in the womb of his wife and production of the wife of petitioner is sought. It is alleged that the petitioner and said Rama Markam got married in Jagdish Mandir Jabalpur, according to Hindu rites on 21.1.2013. It is contended that even before the marriage, it was found that the wife of the petitioner was pregnant as a report was given on 19.12.2012 and it was informed by the doctors that the proposed date of delivery would be 26.9.2013. It is contended that the petitioner and said Rama Markam were living together as husband and wife even before the date of marriage and when they became aware of the fact that the daughter of respondent No. 2 Rama Markam was pregnant, they got married. When the petitioner was not at his home, said Rama Markam had gone to house of her aunt at Sarangpur, from where she was taken forcefully by the respondent No. 2 with an intention to detain or confine her. When the petitioner came to know about these facts, he approached the respondent No. 2, but he was ill treated. A report in this respect was made by the petitioner in the Police Station Ghansour, seeking protection of the life of his unborn child, but as no action is taken on the said report made on 16.3.2013 and 28.3.2013, this writ petition is required to be filed. Upon notice of the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 and the police authorities have filed their return categorically contending that in fact on receipt of information, the police went to the house of respondent No. 2. In fact, an FIR was got registered against the petitioner for offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint made by the daughter of the respondent No. 2. It was categorically alleged by her that she was aged about 22 years and was studying at Ghansour. She fell in love with the petitioner herein and went to Jabalpur where marriage was performed in the temple. After when both were residing at Ghansour, the petitioner started ill-treating her and she was beaten, therefore, she left the house, went to her aunt and from there she went to her parents house. She does not want to go back to the house of the petitioner and is willing to live with her parents. On registration of this FIR, the investigation was done and a challan has been filed in the Court of JMFC Lakhnadon where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. This being so, only to prejudice the criminal proceedings, the petitioner has sought relief in this petition. A copy of the challan is produced along with the return filed by respondents. On medical examination, pain in neck of the said complainant is found. The statement of other person is also recorded.

From the copy of the challan, it is clear that the offence was already registered against the petitioner and he was taken in custody even before filing of the present writ petition on 1.4.2013. This fact that the petitioner was arrested and was produced before the Court, was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. In the entire petition, such a fact is concealed by the petitioner that any such offence was registered against him or that he was arrested, on the complaint made by the complainant Rama Markam with whom he alleged that he has married. Not a single word is stated in the entire writ petition with respect to registration of such a crime. The affidavit of this writ petition was sworn on 17.6.2013 i.e. much after the arrest of the petitioner and at least this fact should have been mentioned by him in the writ petition. Further, he made a complaint before Human Rights Commission, but in the said report also nothing is said about such a fact relating to registration of crime against him. The card so produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition contains the signature of only a health worker and the same is not authenticated by any authority of the Health Department of the Government of M.P. Thus, such a fact as has been reported by the police cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that the petition was filed bonafidely. On the other hand, it has to be held that the petitioner has mislead this Court by filing a misconceived and misleading writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus. This being so, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be recovered from the petitioner by the Collector of the district where the petitioner is residing, as arrears of land revenue and to be credited in the Legal Aid Society of this Court within a month. In case such a cost is not paid by the petitioner, the Collector of the district would be authorised to take appropriate action under the law for recovery of such cost. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.