Judgment · High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. This petition under Article 226 of 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeks following relief read with Section 528 of BNS S, 2023 seeks following reliefs: I. A writ in the nature of habeas corpus to respondent A writ in the nature of habeas corpus to No.1 to 5 to produce respondent No.6 before the No.1 to 5 to produce respondent No.6 before the Court from the custody of respondent No.7. Court from the custody of respondent No.7. A writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions II. A writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions respondents No.2 and 3 respondents No.2 and 3 to conduct an to conduct an independent assessment of respondent No.6 by a independent assessment of respondent No.6 by a qualified clinical psychologist/ linical psychologist/counsellor. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the III. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents No.1 to 5 to facilitate a meeting official respondents No.1 to 5 to facilitate a meeting CRWP-6015 6015-2026(O&M) 2 between the petitioner and respondent No.6 in between the petitioner supervised manner in Court complex. supervised manner in Court complex. IV. A writ in the nature of A writ in the nature of mandamus directing

respondents No.2 to 5 to register an FIR against respondents No.2 to 5 to register an FIR against respondents No.7 and 8 for forging, fabricating and respondents No.7 and 8 for forging, creating a false marriage certificate. creating a false marriage certificate A writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the V. A writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the fake, fake, false and false and forged marriage certificate forged marriage certi purportedly issued by respondent No.8 as the same purportedly issued by respondent No.8 as the same is forged and invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prateek Rathee Learned counsel for the petitioner that daughter of petitioner, a practicing Advocate in District that daughter of petitioner, a practicing submits that daughter of petitioner, a practicing Court, Gurugram was illegally detained by Court, Gurugram was illeg ally detained by respondent No.7, a gangster involved in various criminal cases. Daughter with criminal antecedents, involved in various criminal cases. Daughter with criminal antecedents of the petitioner was B.Sc second year student in a college at of the petitioner was B.Sc second year student in a college at of the petitioner was B.Sc second year student in a college at Gurugram. She left the house on 24.03.2026 at about 12:00 noon to Gurugram. She left the house on 24.03.2026 at about 12:00 noon to Gurugram. She left the house on 24.03.2026 at about 12:00 noon to purchase grocery and failed to return, whereupon FIR No.61 dated grocery and failed to return, whereupon FIR No.61 dated S, Police Station Sector 37, 24.03.2026 under Section 127(6) of BNS, Police Station Sector 37, 24.03.2026 under Section 127(6) of BN Gurugram was got registered. Respondent No.7 Gurugram was . Respondent No.7, in collusion with officials of respondent No.8 forcibly and fraudulently solemnized of respondent No.8 forcibly and fraudulently solemnized marriage with respondent No.6 under threat marriage with respond ent No.6 under threat, coercion and undue influence at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Sthal, Town Park, HUDA influence at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Sthal, Town Park, HUDA influence at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Sthal, Town Park, HUDA a forged and fabricated marriage Market, Sector-12, Faridabad and a forged and fabricated marriage Market, Sector certificate was procured. certificate was Learned counsel further submits that there was no question Learned counsel further submits that there was er’s daughter who was merely 22 years of age to marry er’s daughter who was merely 22 years of of petitioner’s daughter who was merely 22 years of CRWP-6015 6015-2026(O&M) 3 . During investigation of the criminal respondent No.7 aged 38 years. During investigation of the criminal respondent N police did not find any trace of calls between them. Petitioner case, police did not find any trace of calls between them. Petitioner police did not find any trace of calls between them. Petitioner apprehended that the marriage was solemnized in complete disregard of apprehended that the marriage was solemniz apprehended that the marriage was solemniz of respondent No.6. Petitioner was consent, wishes and rights of respondent No.6. Petitioner was consent, wishes and rights concerned with the well being of his daughter and seriously concerned with the well being of his daughter and seriously concerned with the well being of his daughter and seriously mental harm to her at the behest of apprehended physical and mental harm to her at the behest of apprehended respondent No.7, compelling him to approach t respondent No.7 , compelling him to approach the Court. He prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to produce the detenue- a direction be issued to the respondents to produce the detenue a direction be issued to the respondents to produce the detenue respondent No.6 before the Court and arrange a meeting with the respondent No.6 before the Court and arrange a meeting with the respondent No.6 before the Court and arrange a meeting with the . Further, petitioner. Further psychological independent psychological assessment of assessment of respondent No.6 be conducted, case be regis respondent No.6 be conducted ase be registered against respondents No.7 and 8 and the forged marriage certificate be set aside. No.7 and 8 and the forged marriage certificate be set aside. No.7 and 8 and the forged marriage certificate be set aside. State of Haryana has filed reply/status report by way of State of Haryana has filed reply/status report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police affidavit of of Police, Gurugram and separate . Respondents No.6 and 7, too, reply is filed by respondents No.3 and 5. Respondents No.6 and 7, too, reply is filed have filed reply to the petition. have filed reply to the petition. Learned State counsel and learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents that respondent No.6 left her parental home and No.6 and 7 submit that respondent No.6 left her parental home and No.6 and 7 submit solemnized marriage with respondent No.7 of her free will, volition, marriage with respondent No.7 of her free and there was no question of without any force, coercion or inducement and there was no question of without any force, coercion or inducement issuing of any writ of habeas corpus as respondent No.6 was not in issuing of any writ of habeas corpus as respondent No.6 was not in issuing of any writ of habeas corpus as respondent No.6 was not in that a protection petition was illegal confinement. They further submit that a protection petition was illegal confinement. filed by respondents No.6 and 7 before learned Sessions Judge, filed by respondents No.6 and 7 befor filed by respondents No.6 and 7 befor Faridabad wherein nd of relief to the petitioner was denied. Thus, wherein any kind of relief to the petitioner was denied. Thus, to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. there was no ground to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. there was no ground Respondent No.6 being 22 years old was possessed Respondent No.6 being 22 years old was possessed of mental capacity CRWP-6015 6015-2026(O&M) 4 to take decisions regarding her own life and marriage. to take decision regarding her own life and marriage. Thus, the petition deserves dismissal. petition deserve Heard. In ‘Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi’,