AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As the writ petitions filed by one or other parties, are party-respondents to the other writ petition, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The first writ petition, WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 195 of 2005 has been preferred by Umesh Chandra Vidyarthi for direction on the 2nd respondent to take steps for production of his daughter Anu Mishra, who is the petitioner in the second case.
The second case i.e. WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 197 of 2005 has been preferred by Anu Mishra, daughter of Umesh Chandra Vidyarthi (petitioner of the first case) against the order dated 25th May, 2005 passed by the learned SDJM, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, she was directed to appear, in person, before the Court below.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petitions, it appears that the complainant (Anu Mishra) initially made certain allegations against her husband and filed a Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2004.
When the case was taken up, it was informed by Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for petitioner Anu Mishra that both the husband and wife are now leading happy conjugal life and for that the complainant wanted to withdraw the complaint petition. A petition for withdrawal of the complaint case was filed by her on the ground that both the husband and wife have compromised the matter, but for verification of the same, the Court below has directed the complainant (Anu Mishra) to appear, in person.
It is informed that the petitioner Anu Mishra is in the family way and the doctor has advised her for bed rest.
In such a situation, it is not desirable for her to appear, in person, before the Court below.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Anu Mishra further submitted that an affidavit has been filed under the signature of Anu Mishra along with an affidavit filed by her husband in WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 195 of 2005. He pressed the same, wherein Anu Mishra has taken oath and stated that she is living in her matrimonial house along with her husband and is pregnant since 3-1/2 moths. It is alleged that her father and her husband are daggers drown and they do not want to see each other. She wants to live with her husband and nobody should interfere in her matrimonial life.
The counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Umesh Chandra Vidyarthi accepted that Anu Mishra was legally married with respondent Sashi Bhushan Mishra and they are living together in her matrimonial house.
In the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ petition WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 195 of 2005, Umesh Chandra Vidyarthi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., allow the other writ petition WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 197 of 2005, Anu Mishra v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
The writ petition WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 195 of 2005 is dismissed.
So far as the other writ petition WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 197 of 2005 is concerned which has been filed against the order dated 25th May, 2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2004, the same is set aside.
The said complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 1095 of 2004 is remitted to the learned Court below with direction to take up to application preferred by the complainant (Anu Mishra) for withdrawal of the complaint case and pass appropriate order therein. If the husband and wife are living happy conjugal life and Anu Mishra is residing with her husband, as accepted by her father (Umesh Chandra Vidyarthi), there should not be any difficulty for the Court below to allow the petitioner to withdraw the complaint case. The Court below should pass order accordingly.
The writ petition WP (Cr) Habeas Corpus No. 197 of 2005 is allowed with the aforesaid observations.