VAKIL MAHTO AND ANR vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ) AND OTHERS

$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 15th April, 2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 1155/2024
VAKIL MAHTO AND ANR ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nitika Bakshi, Advocate (through V.C.)
versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ) AND OTHERS
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya and Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocates with Inspr. Rishikesh Meena and SI Mayank, PS Kalyanpuri
Mr. S.P. Singh, Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.4.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer:-
“issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ (s), order (s), and direction (s) thereby directing the Respondents to produce Sh. Lalan Mehto S/o Sh. Nikhandi Mehto before this Hon’ble court either dead or alive so that the petitioners may be sure that their father is living like a free citizen in the company of respondent No. 4 who are not allowing to have any kind of communication of their father with the petitioners in any manner or mode or not allowing him to visit at the house of the petitioner.”

2. Curiously, though the father of the petitioners is very much alive, in prayer, to our astonishment, it is stated that he be produced either dead or alive.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Standing Counsel for the State who has produced Status report dated 15.04.2024. The same is taken on record.
4. It is stated that the father of the petitioners had married twice. His first wife, i.e, the mother of the petitioners has already expired. It is further stated that the father of the petitioners suffered paralysis attack on 06.03.2024 and since then petitioners had been taking his care. The grievance of the petitioners is that on 10.03.2024, the respondent No.4 (second wife of the father of the petitioners) forcibly took him with her to her house in East Vinod Nagar and now the petitioner and his family members are not even being allowed to meet their father.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 enters appearance and submits that respondent No.4 has never disallowed the petitioners and family to meet their father. He, however, submits that whenever petitioners come to the house of respondent No.4 to meet their father, there is ruckus.
6. As per status report also, on 12.04.2024, petitioners visited the house of respondent No.4 and then they started arguing and abusing each other and despite the intervention of the beat staff, they came to blows and, therefore, as a preventive action parties were booked under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C.
7. Taking broad overview of the matter, it becomes apparent that the present petition, which is in the nature of Habeas Corpus, is nothing but misuse of judicial process. The second marriage of the father of the petitioners had, reportedly, taken place way back in the year 1997 and there is nothing to suggest any sort of illegal detention, warranting our interference.
8. The present petition is amount to misuse of judicial process and sheer wastage of public time, therefore, we, hereby, dismiss the present petition with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid/deposited in favour of ‘Nirmal Chaya’ for the welfare of the destitute children. The cost be paid within two weeks from today, failing which the same shall be recovered as land revenue in accordance with law by the Registrar General of this Court.
9. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2024
st

W.P.(CRL) 1155/2024 2