W.P.(CRL)/2715/2016 of VIRENDER Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 2715/2016

VIRENDER

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate withPetitioner in person.Petitioner in person.

Versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. StandingCounsel (Criminal) for Govt. of NCTof Delhi with Ms. Rajni Gupta,Additional Public Prosecutor for theState with SI Sanjay Kumar andInspector Satyavir Singh, DIU/NorthDistrict.Counsel (Criminal) for Govt. of NCTof Delhi with Ms. Rajni Gupta,Additional Public Prosecutor for theState with SI Sanjay Kumar andInspector Satyavir Singh, DIU/NorthDistrict.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDULHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R R%06.07.2017

1.The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaprays for issuance of writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of hisalleged/purported wife from the illegal detention of respondent No.2Ms.Vinita Panditain.

2.After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, itemerges that initially the petitioner registered complaint stating thatMs.Poonam, who he claims to be his wife, has gone missing since 26[th]June,2015. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner instituted proceeding before the

W.P.(CRL) 2715/2016

concerned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156 Cr.P.C. seekingregistration of an FIR against Ms. Vinita Panditain. On specific directionfrom the Court, an FIR was registered and it has been brought to our noticethat the said accused has already undergone polygraph test, whichestablishes the truthfulness of her assertion that she was nothing to do withthemissinggirlMs.Poonam.Notbeingsatisfied,thepetitionersubsequently enlarged the scope of the proceedings by seeking registrationof an FIR against four other individuals, who have allegedly conspired withthe said Ms.Vinita Panditain in removing Ms.Poonam from the custody ofthe petitioner.At this juncture, it would be relevant to point out thatpertinently, the petitioner has no documentation whatsoever in relation to hispurported marriage with Ms. Poonam, nor has he been able to produce anyphotograph of the solemnization of the purported marriage, or anystatement/affidavit of witness in relation to the said marriage.3.A perusal of the status report filed on behalf of the Government ofNCT of Delhi reveals that despite the specialized agency’s carrying outpainstaking investigation over the last two years, Ms. Poonam has not beenlocated.It is the assertion on behalf of the official respondents thatMs.Poonam, who was 33 years of age at the time when she went missing, iskeeping herself away from the petitioner; and that in view of thecircumstance that the petitioner is completely unable to produce any proof ofthe purported marriage, the petition is devoid of any merit.It is alsosubmitted on behalf of the official respondents that despite the repeated

insistence, the petitioner has not been forthcoming with information thatwould assist the former in producing the missing person, Ms. Poonam,before this Court, and in fact, on the contrary, the latter has been veryreluctant to disclose the vital information in relation to the same.

4.In view of the foregoing and on account of the circumstance thatMs.Poonam would currently be 35 years of age, as well as the inability ofthe petitioner to persuade this Court that he has, in fact, solemnized amarriage with the said Ms. Poonam, we agree with the official respondentsinsofar as it is asserted that the petitioner neither has locus to maintain thispetition nor any useful purpose shall be served by utilising the time of aspecialized agency to look for Ms. Poonam.

5.The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

JULY 06, 2017sb

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

W.P.(CRL) 2715/2016