Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Memwati v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary (Home),Govt.Of U.P. & Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 16291 of 2003 [2004] RD-AH 102 (27 February 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.32

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.16291 of 2003

Smt. Memwati vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble R.S. Tripathi, J.

Case is called out in the revised list but no body appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition although name of Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has been shown in the cause list.  It further appears from the order sheet that on 16.12.2003 also none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, it was ordered to be listed in the next cause list.  We have perused the writ petition.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the husband of the petitioner before this Court or to release him from wrongful confinement.

It has been asserted in the writ petition that the petitioner's husband, who was a constable, was missing from the police line, Meerut since 4.10.2002 where, at the relevant time, he was posted.  It has also been alleged that he was picked up by respondent nos.6, 7, 8 & 9 in connivance with the local police and since then his whereabouts is not known to the petitioner.   However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been alleged that one constable, Dharampal Singh was murdered and case crime no.197 of 2002, under Section 302 IPC was registered.  During the course of investigation it was found that Vikram Singh, husband of the petitioner is involved in the aforesaid murder.  Accordingly, charge sheet no.17 of 2003, under Section 302 & 506 IPC dated 7.4.2003 was filed against the husband of the petitioner showing him as absconder.  It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that an inquiry was conducted by Rajveer Puri, Sub Inspector, Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut wherein it has been found that no such incident, as alleged, regarding kidnapping of the petitioner's husband had taken place.  It has also been alleged that false allegation has been made that her husband has been kidnapped with a view to put pressure on the police and as counter blast to the aforesaid case.  It is further stated that according to the inquiry report husband of the petitioner was present in the police line on 5.10.2002 but during the attendance between 7 to 7.30 pm he was not found present and appeared to have left the police line without taking necessary permission.  It is also stated that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging report under Section 364 IPC was moved before the CJM, which was rejected on 10.4.2003.  Copy of the report, charge sheet and order of the learned CJM dated 10.4.2003 have been enclosed with the counter affidavit.  Though copy of the counter affidavit, as it appears from the endorsement made, was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 21.5.2003 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed despite time having been granted on 1.10.2003 on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Therefore, in the absence of rejoinder affidavit the statements made in the counter affidavit goes uncontroverted and stands admitted.

In view of the fact, as has been stated in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner's husband is absconding from the police line without intimating or taking permission of the concerned authorities and also that during investigation prima facie evidence has been collected against the petitioner showing his involvement in case crime no.197 of 2002, under Section 302 IPC, we are not inclined to grant any relief in this petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.