Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:37042-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) (H.B.) No. 636 of 2025 Manju Das, wife of Sri Samir Kumar Das, resident of near Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Sanjay Nagar, Majhi Tola, PO & PS Adityapur, District Saraikela-Kharsawan. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Superintendent of Police, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 4. The Officer-Incharge, Adityapur Police Station, PO and PS Adityapur, District Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 5. Jayashree Das, W/o Bijoy Kumar Das and D/o Shashaka Shekhar Das, resident of KL-32/1, Cross Road-29, Track Park, Telco Colony, PO & PS: Telco, District: East Singhbhum, presently residing at Shankar Niwas, House No.10, Back Side of Avinandan Sweets, Bhaluasa Chowk, PO & PS: Sakchi, District: East Singhbhum. 6. Shubham Das, S/o Samir Kumar Das, R/o Near Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Sanjay Nagar, Manjhitola, Adityapur, PO & PS: Adityapur, Dist.: Seraikella-Kharswan. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate; Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate --- 05/10.12.2025 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to produce the son of the petitioner, respondent no.6, who has been in forceful custody of the respondent no.5 and her family members since 15.06.2025. It has been averred in the instant application that the petitioner is the mother of the newly added respondent no.6 and the respondent no.6 is a B.Tech graduate from BIT, Mesra and after completing his studies, he was working in a multi-national company in Saudi Arabia. It has been stated that in January, 2025 the respondent no.6 had come in contact with the respondent no.5 through social media and in course of their friendship, the respondent no.5 had eloped with the son of the petitioner, who is the respondent no.6 and there has been no communication with the family of the petitioner for months. It has been stated that the respondent no.5 is a married lady having two grown up daughters. An e-mail was received all of a sudden on 27.08.2025 by the husband of the petitioner wherein it was stated that the respondent no.6 had been trapped by the respondent no.5 and is also being subjected to mental and physical abuse. The receipt of the e-mail led to an information being given to the Adityapur police station with a request to take action but since the same did not evoke any positive response, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ application. In course of hearing of this writ application, an interlocutory application was preferred by Shubham Das, the son of the petitioner and the same having been allowed, he was arrayed as respondent no.6 in the present writ application. In the intervention application preferred by the respondent no.6 there seems to be a development with respect to the fact that the marriage of the respondent no.5 and her husband has been dissolved by mutual consent under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 08.07.2025 and in support of which, the decree of divorce has been brought on record. It has also been stated therein that after the marriage was dissolved between the respondent no.5 and her husband, the respondent no.6 and the respondent no.5 had decided to solemnize marriage which they ultimately did and some photographs have been brought on record in support thereof. On the last occasion, we had initiated a talk of compromise between both the parties, who were physically present but today the counsels appearing for the respective parties have stated that the chances of a compromise are bleak as the petitioner is not accepting the respondent no.5 as her daughter-in-law. In view of the developments, which have been brought on record through various affidavits and which we have noted above, the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this application has become redundant and consequent thereto, we dispose of this writ application. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) 10.12.2025 S.B. Uploaded on 11.12.2025 -2-