w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal v/s State of Bihar

    Criminal Writ 616 Of 2005

    Decided On, 30 September 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar


    For the Appearing Parties: A.N. Singh, P.K. Shahi, Mohd Khurshid Alam, Advocates.

Judgment Text

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the version of the girl Kumari Puja, who is present in Court, brought by the family of the parents.

(2.) Kumari Puja is adult and a student prosecuting her studies. Having already passed B.A. Part I examination, she wants to prosecute her further studies. The parents of the girl are also present.

(3.) Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal is also present, but his parents are not present. He has been working as Manager of a firm, namely, Praga

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ti Enterprises, Samastipur. The parents of the girl, Kumari Puja, are residing near that office of the petitioner. Kumari Puja has mentioned in our presence, in open Court, that the petitioner is not her husband and she has not entered into any matrimony. She has also stated before us that no child has been delivered by her, so, there is no question of there being any child out of any relationship with the petitioner and herself.

(4.) In the light of the entire conspectus of the facts and the oral version of Kumari Puja, who has consistently remained insistent to remain in the house of the parents, where she is at present, and the house is interested in prosecuting her further studies, we pass the following order.

(5.) It is the cardinal principle of the philosophy of the writ of "habeas corpus" that a person, who is adult or, in other words, not minor, and in the, present case, a girl of 20 years, having passed B.A. Part I examination in the College and who has narrated painfully, as well as, implored, in the open Court, the agony, harassment and the strains and other problems created by the petitioner with her, has undoubtedly a choice to voice as to where she would like to go. It is in this context, before us, in the open Court, in the presence of all the lawyers, she repeatedly mentioned that she would like to go to her parent's house and at no body's place and to prosecute her further studies.

(6.) We, therefore, permit Kumari Puja to go to her parent's house. However, in view of the manner and method she has narrated the episode and harassment, meted out to her by the petitioner, we deem it necessary to provide security at her place for some time, at least for one month, and, thereafter, it will be open for the party to request for extension of such security, if need be, and the Court will take into account the then prevalent requirements.

(7.) It is, however, to be considered, whether in view of the facts emerging, unequivocally, from these sets of facts, stated in our presence, as well as, from the materials on record, would clearly show that resorting to constitutional writ redressal of "habeas corpus" by the petitioner be justified or would it lead to an impression of abusing and misusing the process of the Court, that too, in a constitutional writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary, extraordinary, plenary and equitable, for the protection and defence of the life and liberty? Whether such a purpose can be said to have been subserved or can be said to be an attempt by the husband, when several litigations are pending against him at the instance of Kumari Puja, as a short-cut to get out of other legal liabilities, by resorting to constitutional "habeas corpus" writ redressal which would be the only deducible event? If the process of the Court, more so, when the process of the constitutional writ Court is flagrantly misused or maliciously violated, the Court cannot sit quiet as a mute spectator. It is, therefore, not only expedient but incumbent upon the writ Court to set an example by inflicting exemplary cost so that there may be a signal to the others that any attempt to misuse or abuse the power or process of the constitutional writ jurisdiction remedy is nothing but violative of the underlying design of the Constitution.

(8.) In the present case, we have noticed that the petitioner has been working as Manager in the firm known as "Pragati Enterprises, Samastipur, and he is distributor of wine. However, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that now he is not working. Be that as it may, looking to the unfortunate and paradoxical factual situation and unsuccessful attempt in short-circuiting the pending litigations including criminal, the petitioner has, flagrantly, violated, abused and misused the process of the constitutional redressal remedy.

(9.) We, therefore, direct the petitioner, while dismissing the petition for "habeas corpus" to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. In the event of non-compliance of this direction, either of parties, or the Registry shall bring this matter to the notice of this Court for recovery of the amount of cost. Upon cost being deposited and recovered the same shall be paid to Kumari Puja under proper verification and identification by the Registry of this Court.

(10.) With the above observations and direction, this petition shall stand dismissed with the aforesaid special cost to be paid to the other side, Kumari Puja. She is, now, at liberty to go with her parents, who are present in Court, under police protection, which protection shall continue with her, at least, for the period stated hereinabove