WPCRL/1195/2016 of Manoj Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1195 of 2016

Manoj Kumar

Versus

…Petitioner

State of Uttarakhand and others

…Respondents

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. N.S. Kanyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 and 2

Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.

V.K. Bist, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the writ petition are as follows:

“i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to safeguard his life and liberty at the hands of respondent nos.2 and 3 and to prevent an illegal act of marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.3 for which respondent no.2 and 3 are pressurizing the petitioner inspite of the fact that respondent no.3 is already married woman married to one Arvind Sharma and has not taken divorce from her husband Arvind Sharma.

ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iii) Award cost of the petition.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner is 26 years’ old unmarried male from District Champawat, who is presently trying to build his career. Petitioner alleges that respondent no.3 Smt. Deepa Sharma, in collusion with her relatives and police department, is pressurizing him to marry her, who, according to the petitioner, is already married woman. Petitioner further alleges that respondent no.3

recently gave birth to baby girl and started claiming that the said child belongs to the petitioner; she also got published articles in the newspaper against the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner made representation to the respondent no.1 with prayer to safeguard his life from respondent no.3 and that he is prepared for any DNA test to prove his innocence that he is not the father of the baby girl born to respondent no.3. According to the petitioner, respondent no.3 is trying to make out case that she had been in relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner, after such upheaval in his life, enquired about respondent no.3 and came to know that she is married to one Arvind Sharma and case of divorce is pending between them. Petitioner contends that no one can compel the petitioner to do illegal act of marrying respondent no.3, who is already married and has not taken divorce from her husband.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Ultimately, the law will take its own course.

5. The writ petition is dismissed.

6. Petitioner is free to file any appropriate remedy before appropriate court.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

07.09.2016

(V.K. Bist, J.)

07.09.2016