SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1866

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Ravit Chowdhry  - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Haryana And Others – Respondent
CWP-24956-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 16-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate, and Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate, with Mr. Ravit Chowdhry
For the Respondent:Mr. Vivek Saini, Addl. A.G. Haryana; Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, with Ms. Sulekha

JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the proceedings initiated before the respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, a warrant of Search dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) has been issued authorizing Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Sadar Ratia, to enter the house of the petitioner and to produce Ekat i.e. son of the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratia.

PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 01.11.2021 and out of the said wedlock, a son namely, Ekat was born on 17.10.2022. Respondent No.3 is working as a Senior Manager with a real estate group namely ELAA in Gurguram while the petitioner is working as an Assistant Vice President with another real estate group namely Tulip Infratech, Gurugram. The parties were residing together at Gurugram. It is alleged that respondent No.3 left the matrimonial house on 22.09.2023 without any intimation and she also took away her belongings and jewellery. She deserted her son Ekat, who was then about one year old, at the house with the petitioner and left him there while leaving. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 treated the petitioner with cruelty even before leaving the matrimonial house and that she did not make any enquiry or showed any concern about the well being of the minor child. Thereafter, on 27.09.2023, respondent No.3 entered the house with certain unknown persons and started shouting at the petitioner and creating a public unruly scene in the building and in the surroundings. It was with great persuasion that family members of respondent No.3 and the parents of petitioner were able to sit across on 28.09.2023, in an attempt to resolve the issue. The respondent No.3, however, again came with police personnel and asked for her clothes and other belongings and all her belongings were taken to the police post. As respondent No.3 continued to create a scene and harassed the petitioner, a complaint dated 28.09.2023 was submitted by the petitioner at Police Station, Sushant Lok, District Gurugram against respondent No.3, giving a narration of the entire incident that had taken place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding that respondent No.3 had herself deserted the child and left him at the matrimonial house, a proceeding was instituted by respondent No.3 under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Ratia, District Fatehabad and a search warrant dated 25.10.2023 was issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratia, District Fatehabad. It had been alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner illegally confined the infant. The police officials tried to enter the house of the petitioner and threatened the brother of the petitioner with dire consequences if the child is not produced. A complaint regarding the above said incident was submitted by the petitioner to the SHO, Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram on 02.11.2023. The present writ petition has now been filed challenging the proceedings initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratia, District Fatehabad for production of the minor child along with the orders passed therein.

PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENTS.

4. No response has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana, however, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 Sulekha wherein, she has narrated her version of the incident admitting that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 had been solemnized on 01.11.2021 at New Delhi. Allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner and members of his family have also been leveled in the said response. It is further averred that her in-laws used to torture her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top