Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Chirag Singhvi S/o Shri. Narpat Singhvi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Police Commissioner, Jodhpur - Respondents
D.B Habeas Corpus No. 149 of 2017
Decided On : 15-12-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. MR Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhavit Sharma, Mr. Hukum Singh, Mr. NK Bohra, Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, Mr. Gokulesh Bohra.
For the Respondent:Mr. SK Vyas, AAG with Mr. Hanuman Singh Gaur, Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishant Bora, Mr. A.R Malkani, Mr. Laxmi Narayan, Addl. S.P, Jodhpur
Headnote:
Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Act, 2006 - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 - Illegal, wrongful and unlawful confinement - It is also stated in the petition that Payal Singhvi (detenue) was very fearful, therefore sometime, took money and gave to the respondent no. 2 to satisfy the demand and with the hope that photographs which is in possession of respondent no. 2 would be retuned, but unfortunately, even after taking money Faiez Modi did not return those photographs. Upon above fact, an oral complaint was made to the concerned Police Station, but police officers told that it is better for you to keep silence otherwise reputation of Payal Singhvi would be at stake and she may be disrepute in public at large, due to said reason, no written complaint was made to the police. - Held, The person, who has converted his religion from one religion to another religion, shall solemnize the marriage/Nikah after one week of such conversion of religion. For that, the authority/person concerned before whom such marriage/Nikha is being solemnized, shall ensure whether information of conversion has been made or not and thereafter assist in solemnizing the marriage/Nikah. It is made clear that if any person is desirous for publication of change of religion in the Gazette, he/she shall take recourse of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. aforesaid guidelines shall remain operative until the Act of 2006 or any other act governing the subject matter came into existence in State of Rajasthan to protect the forcible conversion of religion - Petition is herby disposed of
Key Points: - The court held that till enforcement of the Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Act, 2006, guidelines may be necessary to check forcible conversion for the purpose of marriage. [17000529440037] - The court recognized the High Courts’ power under Article 226 to issue directions, orders, or writs to address injustices and to mould relief, and rejected the argument that guidelines cannot be issued until the Act is in force. (!) (!) (!) [17000529440027] - The court disposed of the habeas corpus petition with directions that include issuing guidelines (A–J) for preventing forcible conversion, while clarifying that the guidelines do not affect the rights of Payal Singhvi and Faiez Modi as adults. [17000529440047][17000529440048]
What is the court's stance on guidelines to check forcible conversion of religion pending enactment of the 2006 Act?
What is the court’s view on whether High Courts can issue guidelines under Article 226 to address forcible conversion for marriage?
What are the consequences and scope of Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Act, 2006 in relation to this case?
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
1. In this habeas corpus writ petition filed by the petitioner Chirag Singhvi, following prayer is made by the petitioner, which reads as under:
“Hence, it is prayed on behalf of the petitioner that a writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued against the non-petitioner to bring the corpus before the Hon'ble Court and thereafter the body of the corpus may be handed over to the petitioner and set free from the illegal, wrongful and unlawful confinement of the non-petitioner no. 2 and any other writ, direction or order with this court thinks proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. As per the facts of the case pleaded in the writ petition, the sister of the petitioner Payal Singhvi D/o Narpat Singhvi, resident of Shanti Sagar, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur after passing M.Com Examination, preparing for RAS Examination, but from last 4-5 years whenever she was going to the college, the non-petitioner no. 2, who was in habit of stalking her, tried to molest her. A complaint was made by Payal Singhvi to the petitioner and family members, therefore, non-petitioner Faiez Modi and his family members were instructed by the petitioner not to act in this manner, but the respondent no. 2 somehow obtained mobile number of Payal Singhvi from other sources and used to send obscene messages to her sister. It is also contended that respondent no. 2 Faiez Modi is not enjoying good character and having companies of the persons indulged in illegal criminal activities, therefore, due to fear, no complaint was made to the Police against the respondent no. 2, but subsequently an information was given by Payal Singhvi that respondent no. 2 Faiez Modi took certain photographs of her when she was going to college and on the basis of those photographs he was blackmailing her and sending obscene messages and gave threat that he will publish these photographs on internet/social media to disrepute you. It is also stated in the petition that Payal Singhvi (detenue) was very fearful, therefore sometime, took money and gave to the respondent no. 2 to satisfy the demand and with the hope that photographs which is in possession of respondent no. 2 would be retuned, but unfortunately, even after taking money Faiez Modi did not return those photographs. Upon above fact, an oral complaint was made to the concerned Police Station, but police officers told that it is better for you to keep silence otherwise reputation of Payal Singhvi would be at stake and she may be disrepute in public at large, due to said reason, no written complaint was made to the police.
3. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that from last 4-5 months, the detenue Payal Singhvi told her mother that Faiez Modi has tried to kidnap her when she was going to college and returning from the college along with certain friends and forcibly took her in a car and obtained signatures upon some papers before one Mulla Maulvi and thereafter, left to go her house. According to the petitioner, a complaint was made by the detenue that non-petitioner no. 2 perhaps prepared false and forged documents of her marriage. In the writ petition it is stated that on 25.10.2017 she was forcibly taken away by Faiez Modi along with his criminal gang. The family of the petitioner belongs to Jain community and peaceful citizen of Jodhpur City, therefore, the non-petitioner no. 2 took advantage of peaceful family and kidnapped her. After kidnapping Payal Singhvi, she never returned at home, therefore, a search was made by the family members and petitioner and they went to the house of non-petitioner no. 2 where his house was found to be locked, therefore, they went to the Police Station, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur to lodge report against the non-petitioner no. 2, but no action was taken by the SHO Police Station, Pratapnagar. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur where he was informed by the Police Commissione
