The court emphasized the importance of respecting an individual's choice and rights, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

1. The petitioner , who claims to be the friend of , the detenue filed the present writ petition habeas corpus, praying to direct the respondent No.2-police to produce petitioner's partner , daughter of before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he is aged 23 years, a transgender, self identified as male and prefers the name . The daughter of respondent Nos.3 and 4, i.e., aged 18 years has been in consensual relationship with the petitioner, since 2019. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not approve relationship with the petitioner since beginning and have resorted her to physical and emotional abuse for being in relationship with the petitioner. Ms being unable to withstand the abuse inflicted on her, decided to leave her parents' house and came to petitioner's house to stay with him on 09.05.2022. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 were well aware of Ms, desire to live with the petitioner. The next day, 2nd respondent police called the petitioner and informed that parents had filed a kidnapping case against petitioner and therefore, asked the petitioner to bring to Police Station. When the petitioner and went to police station, the family members of . forcefully separated her from petitioner and took away It is further case of the petitioner that he is unaware of whereabouts, her safety and well being. The illegal and unlawful separation and confinement of is without the authority of law and is in blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. The respondent No.2-jurisdictional police produced aged 18 years, along with her parents. When query was made by this Court, stated that petitioner is only her friend and she is not willing to go with petitioner and denied the allegation made in the writ petition that she is in consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2019 and further stated that she is willing to stay with her parents. The statement made by in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate and respondent Nos.3 and 4(parents of "' ') is placed on record.

3. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. At this stage, Smt.Jaina Kothari, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

5. Since we have already taken a decision to dismiss the writ petition, question of permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition would not arise. Though we were inclined to impose cost, at the intervention of learned Senior Counsel, we deem it proper to dismiss the writ petition, with a warning to the petitioner not to repeat such acts of violating the rights of a person as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in future.

6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.