LAL MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 183, 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 164
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (VIVEK CHAUDHARY) JUDGE (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2025/st/js Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:13.10.2025 16:32:54 W.P.(CRL) 3161/2025 2
Judgment
Through: Mr. Dileep Kumar Mishra with Mr. Mahendra Singh, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, St. Counsel (Crl.) with .....Respondents Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr.Aryam Sachdeva and Mr.Abhinav Kr. Arya, Advocate with SI Ajit Kumar, PS Anand Parbat. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
This case has been taken up on urgent mentioning by learned counsel for the State.
Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 and petitioner, inter alia, seeks directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents to produce his missing daughter.
The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2025, Ms. Shama Parveen (daughter of petitioner), aged 22 years, left her residence to go to her office situated at Karol Bagh, Delhi and did not return thereafter. Petitioner tried his best to search for her but it was to no avail.
Thereafter, on 20.08.2025, the petitioner approached Police Station Anand Parbat where an FIR regarding his missing daughter was registered. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:13.10.2025 16:32:54 W.P.(CRL) 3161/2025 1
When the matter was taken up on last date of hearing i.e.
25.09.2025, the State was directed that as when the missing girl is recovered, she be produced before this Court.
Status report dated 10.10.2025 has been submitted during the course of proceedings and same is taken on record.
Today, the missing daughter of petitioner has been produced in the Court. We have interacted with the girl in question who is 22 years of age and had studied upto 12th Class.
She submits that she has already got married and would like to stay with her husband only. She further states that she does not want to go back to her parents. Her statement to said effect, has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Section 183 B.N.S.S.), which, too, has been perused by us. 9.
Since the daughter of petitioner is major and can take her own Her mother is also present in Court. independent decision, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition.
Operative part
Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (VIVEK CHAUDHARY) JUDGE (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2025/st/js Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:13.10.2025 16:32:54 W.P.(CRL) 3161/2025 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 183, 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 10 Oct 2025. The bench was VIVEK CHAUDHARY, MANOJ JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.