1 2025:CGHC:14203-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 164 of 2025 1 - Shubham Pandey S/o Dilip Kumar Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dundu, Post - Dhourpur, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Neha Yadav W/o Shubham Pandey Aged About 22 Years D/o Rajeshwar Yadav, R/o Village Dundu, Post - Dhourpur, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police Police Headquarter, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent of Police Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Dhourpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Sachin Yadav S/o Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Damakud, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Damakud, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Dhanesh Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kudar, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Rajeshwar Yadav S/o Faudar Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dundu, Post - Dhaurpur, Police Station And Tahsil Dhaurpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.25 16:52:36 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.03 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. 2 By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus quashing impugned missing person report having registration no.33354012250003 by the police station Dhourpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (Annexure P/2). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the respondent police authority not to harass the petitioners and family members of petitioner no.1. 3 (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the respondent police authority to ensure safety and security of the petitioners and facilitate their return to their Village Dundu, Police Station & Tahsil Dhourpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). (iv) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioners got acquainted with each other prior to two years. Petitioner No.2 and her family members is having a grocery shop in their village and petitioner No.1 used to study at Ambikapur and during vacations, he used to visit his village as also the grocery shop of petitioner No.2. They were acquainted and fell in love with each other. They used to talk in mobile also. Petitioner No.2, 2-3 months later expressed her desire to marry petitioner No.1 to her parents, but her parents did not agree and became angry upon petitioner No.2. The parents of petitioner No.2 did not agree for marriage between the petitioners mainly for the reason that both belonged to different community/caste; such as petitioner No.1 belongs to Brahman caste and petitioner No.2 belongs to Yadav (Ahir) caste. 4 It is the case of the petitioners that in the last week of February, petitioner No.2 was brutally beaten up by her father and other family members as she was pushed against the wall and was 4 beaten up with fists and kicks, due to which, she suffered injuries on her head, leg and back as also they tried to strangulate her. Petitioner No.2 was not allowed for any medical treatment and she got cured without any treatment at home. In the meanwhile, family of petitioner No.2 arranged her marriage with a boy of their own caste, namely Dhanesh Yadav (respondent No.7), to which, petitioner No.2 has objected and made repeated request that she be allowed to marry with petitioner No.1. 5 It is further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 has informed about her love affair with petitioner No.1 three months before to the cousin of petitioner No.2, namely Sachin Yadav (respondent No. 5) and due to which, around 1½ years, Sachin Yadav along with his friends confronted petitioner No.1 and assaulted him. He was threatened of dire consequence, if he continued relationship with petitioner No.2. When there is no possibility of marriage between the petitioners, with the consent of family of petitioner No.2, she has requested petitioner No.1 to take her away from her house. On 09.03.2025, petitioner No.1 left for house of his sister at Village Shankargarh, nearby Prayagraj Uttar Pradesh and on the next day, i.e. on 10.03.2025, petitioner No.2 also left her house on her own volition and went to Raipur and stayed in some cheap lodge and railway platform etc. The mobile of petitioner No.1 was kept switched off as the family of petitioner No.2 were looking for him. On 15.03.2025, both the 5 petitioners could communicate with each other in mobile through a cousin of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, both the petitioners met with each other at Bilaspur. On 18.03.2025, they went to Raipur and solemnized their marriage in Arya Samaj Temple. In the meanwhile, the family members of petitioner No.2 submitted a complaint at Police Station Dhourpur and made a false allegation of abduction against petitioner No.1, pursuant to which, a missing person report has been registered being registration No.33354012250003. Thereafter, father of petitioner No.1 has made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Surguja on 17.03.2025 and raised his grievance that the police of Police Station Dhourpur are harassing him. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supply (1) SCC 335, Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India passed in Writ Petition (C) No.75 of 2012 and Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, to buttress his submissions. 6 Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are major individuals and they have entered into a marriage in the Arya Samaj Temple out of their own volition. He further submits that the petitioners are well educated persons, both are in the final year of their graduation as also their exams are reaching and petitioner No.2 will be deprived of giving exams, 6 if the threat continues. It has been contended that their choice cannot be throttled by a false and fabricated missing report and the such missing report is sheer abuse of process of law because the parents of the petitioner No.2 knew that their daughter was not missing and had gone on her own to marry with petitioner No.1 and despite knowing the whereabouts, the missing report was lodged to intimidate the petitioners and family members of petitioner No.1. It has been further contended that despite knowing that both the petitioners are major aged about 25 and 22 years, respectively, the Police authorities have threatened the father of petitioner No.1 to implicate in a false case, if his son does not bring petitioner No.2 and handover her to her parents. It has been lastly submitted that father of petitioner No.1 has made a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Surguja on 17.03.2025 raising his grievance that the Police of Police Station Dhourpur are harassing him, but till date no assurance has been given by the S.P. Surguja, as such, the missing report bearing registration No.33354012250003 is required to be set-aside/quashed. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7 9 Perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it goes to show that the petitioner No.1 belongs to Brahman caste and petitioner No.2 belongs to Yadav (Ahir) caste and on 09.03.2025, petitioner No.1 left for house of his sister at Village Shankargarh, nearby Prayagraj Uttar Pradesh and on the next day, i.e. on 10.03.2025, petitioner No.2 also left her house on her own volition and went to Raipur and stayed in some cheap lodge and railway platform etc. The mobile of petitioner No.1 was kept switched off as the family of petitioner No.2 were looking for him. On 15.03.2025, both the petitioners could communicate with each other in mobile through a cousin of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, both the petitioners met with each other at Bilaspur. On 18.03.2025, they went to Raipur and solemnized their marriage in Arya Samaj Temple. In the meanwhile, the family members of petitioner No.2 submitted a complaint at Police Station Dhourpur and made an allegation of abduction against petitioner No.1, pursuant to which, a missing person report has been registered being registration No.33354012250003 and thereafter, father of petitioner No.1 has made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Surguja on 17.03.2025 and raised his grievance that the police of Police Station Dhourpur are harassing him. 10 Considering the matter in its entirety as well as appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 8 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of any relief to the petitioners. However, they are at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised. 11 The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu