CRWP-6015 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 222 Pritam Chauhan State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. 1. read with Section 528 of BNS 6015-2026(O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRWP Date of decision: Pritam Chauhan V/S Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Bharti, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. This petition under Article 226 of read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeks following relief I. A writ in the nature of habeas corpus to No.1 to 5 to produce respondent No.6 before the Court from the custody of respondent No.7. II. A writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to conduct an independent assessment of respondent No.6 by a qualified clinical psychologist/ III. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents No.1 to 5 to facilitate a meeting 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6015-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , Advocate Mr. Kshitij Bharti, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate dvocate for respondent No.8. 226 of Constitution of India S, 2023 seeks following reliefs: A writ in the nature of habeas corpus to respondent No.1 to 5 to produce respondent No.6 before the Court from the custody of respondent No.7. A writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to conduct an independent assessment of respondent No.6 by a linical psychologist/counsellor. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents No.1 to 5 to facilitate a meeting KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 submits that daughter of petitioner, a practicing Court, Gurugram was illeg with criminal antecedents of the petitioner was B.Sc second year student in a college at Gurugram. She left the house on 24.03.2026 at about 12:00 noon to purchase grocery and failed 24.03.2026 under Section 127(6) of BN Gurugram was officials of marriage with respond influence at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Sthal, Town Park, HUDA Market, Sector certificate was of petitioner’s daughter who was merely 22 years of 6015-2026(O&M) between the petitioner supervised manner in Court complex. IV. A writ in the nature of respondents No.2 to 5 to register an FIR against respondents No.7 and 8 for forging, creating a false marriage certificate V. A writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the fake, false and forged marriage certi purportedly issued by respondent No.8 as the same is forged and invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioner that daughter of petitioner, a practicing Court, Gurugram was illegally detained by with criminal antecedents, involved in various criminal cases. Daughter of the petitioner was B.Sc second year student in a college at Gurugram. She left the house on 24.03.2026 at about 12:00 noon to grocery and failed to return, whereupon FIR No.61 dated 24.03.2026 under Section 127(6) of BNS, Police Station Sector 37, Gurugram was got registered. Respondent No.7 of respondent No.8 forcibly and fraudulently solemnized marriage with respondent No.6 under threat influence at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Sthal, Town Park, HUDA Market, Sector-12, Faridabad and a forged and fabricated marriage certificate was procured. Learned counsel further submits that there was er’s daughter who was merely 22 years of 2 between the petitioner and respondent No.6 in supervised manner in Court complex. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 5 to register an FIR against respondents No.7 and 8 for forging, fabricating and creating a false marriage certificate. A writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the fake, false and forged marriage certificate purportedly issued by respondent No.8 as the same Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prateek Rathee that daughter of petitioner, a practicing Advocate in District ally detained by respondent No.7, a gangster involved in various criminal cases. Daughter of the petitioner was B.Sc second year student in a college at Gurugram. She left the house on 24.03.2026 at about 12:00 noon to to return, whereupon FIR No.61 dated S, Police Station Sector 37, . Respondent No.7, in collusion with respondent No.8 forcibly and fraudulently solemnized ent No.6 under threat, coercion and undue influence at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Sthal, Town Park, HUDA a forged and fabricated marriage Learned counsel further submits that there was no question er’s daughter who was merely 22 years of age to marry KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 respondent N case, police did not find any trace of calls between them. Petitioner apprehended that the marriage was solemniz consent, wishes and rights concerned with the well being of his daughter and seriously apprehended respondent No.7 a direction be issued to the respondents to produce the detenue respondent No.6 before the Court and arrange a meeting with the petitioner. Further respondent No.6 be conducted No.7 and 8 and the forged marriage certificate be set aside. affidavit of reply is filed have filed reply to the petition. No.6 and 7 submit solemnized without any force, coercion or inducement issuing of any writ of habeas corpus as respondent No.6 was not in illegal confinement. filed by respondents No.6 and 7 befor Faridabad wherein there was no ground Respondent No.6 being 22 years old was 6015-2026(O&M) respondent No.7 aged 38 years. During investigation of the criminal police did not find any trace of calls between them. Petitioner apprehended that the marriage was solemniz consent, wishes and rights of respondent No.6. Petitioner was concerned with the well being of his daughter and seriously apprehended physical and mental harm to her at the behest of respondent No.7, compelling him to approach t a direction be issued to the respondents to produce the detenue respondent No.6 before the Court and arrange a meeting with the . Further, independent psychological assessment of respondent No.6 be conducted, case be regis No.7 and 8 and the forged marriage certificate be set aside. State of Haryana has filed reply/status report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police reply is filed by respondents No.3 and 5. Respondents No.6 and 7, too, have filed reply to the petition. Learned State counsel and learned No.6 and 7 submit that respondent No.6 left her parental home and marriage with respondent No.7 of her free without any force, coercion or inducement and there was no question of issuing of any writ of habeas corpus as respondent No.6 was not in illegal confinement. They further submit that a protection petition was filed by respondents No.6 and 7 befor wherein any kind of relief to the petitioner was denied. Thus, there was no ground to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Respondent No.6 being 22 years old was possessed 3 . During investigation of the criminal police did not find any trace of calls between them. Petitioner apprehended that the marriage was solemnized in complete disregard of of respondent No.6. Petitioner was concerned with the well being of his daughter and seriously mental harm to her at the behest of , compelling him to approach the Court. He prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to produce the detenue- respondent No.6 before the Court and arrange a meeting with the psychological assessment of ase be registered against respondents No.7 and 8 and the forged marriage certificate be set aside. State of Haryana has filed reply/status report by way of of Police, Gurugram and separate . Respondents No.6 and 7, too, State counsel and learned counsel for respondents that respondent No.6 left her parental home and marriage with respondent No.7 of her free will, volition, and there was no question of issuing of any writ of habeas corpus as respondent No.6 was not in that a protection petition was filed by respondents No.6 and 7 before learned Sessions Judge, nd of relief to the petitioner was denied. Thus, to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. possessed of mental capacity KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 to take decision petition deserve (1976) 3 SCC 234 that where an individual is over eighteen years be placed on her choice on where to reside or about the person with whom she could stay: 6015-2026(O&M) to take decisions regarding her own life and marriage. petition deserves dismissal. Heard. In ‘Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi (1976) 3 SCC 234, a three judge Bench of the Apex Court that where an individual is over eighteen years be placed on her choice on where to reside or about the person with whom she could stay: "...Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter." The ambit of a habeas corpus petition is to trace an individual who is stated to be missing. Once the individual appears before the court and asserts that as a major, she or he is not under illegal confinement, which the court finds to be a free expression of will, that would conclude the exercise of the jurisdiction. In (2009) 16 SCC 360, a two judge Bench of this Court observed thus: "3...In a habeas corpus petition, all required is to find out and produce in court the person who is stated to be missing. Once the person appeared and she stated that she had gone of her own free will, the High Court had no further jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." 4 regarding her own life and marriage. Thus, the Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi’, of the Apex Court observed that where an individual is over eighteen years of age, no fetters could be placed on her choice on where to reside or about the person with "...Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter." The ambit of a habeas corpus petition is to trace an individual who is stated to be missing. Once the individual appears before the court and asserts that as a major, she or al confinement, which the court finds to be a free expression of will, that would conclude the exercise of the jurisdiction. In Girish v. Radhamony K, , a two judge Bench of this Court "3...In a habeas corpus petition, all that is required is to find out and produce in court the person who is stated to be missing. Once the person appeared and she stated that she had gone of her own free will, the High Court had no further jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in exercise f its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 ‘Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors., 2020(1)SCC (Cri) 850 has been observed as under: 6015-2026(O&M) In Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, Bench of two judges took judicial notice of the harassment, threat and violence meted out to young women and men who marry outside their caste or faith. The court observed that our society is emerging through a crucial transformational period and the court cannot remain silent upon such matters of grave concern. In the view of the court: "17...This is a free and democratic cou and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such intercaste or inter religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout th country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law." In a very recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors., 2020(1)SCC (Cri) 850 observed as under:- 5 Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 , Bench of two judges of the Apex Court took judicial notice of the harassment, threat and violence meted out to young women and men who outside their caste or faith. The court observed that our society is emerging through a crucial transformational period and the court cannot remain silent upon such matters of grave concern. In "17...This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or religious marriage the maximum they can do is social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such intercaste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives ch threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law." In a very recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors., 2020(1)SCC (Cri) 850, it KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 and 7 filed a protection petition titled Haryana and others’ Faridabad, claiming threat to their life and li petitioner and his family members. Judge, Faridabad sent them to protective custody and directed notice to the petitioner and other respondents who put in appearance and sought permission to meet resp psychological protective custody. During the hearing of the case on 27.04.2026, learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad while assessing the threat perception to respondents No.6 and 7, permitted therein) to interact with his daughter. respondents No.6 and 7 was extended on 27.04.2026 and again on 04.05.2026, whereafter, 6015-2026(O&M) “55. In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his of her own volition, married the appellant. Therefore, the High Court has completely erred by taking upon itself the burden of annulling the marriage between the appellant and the respondent no.9 when both stood embedded to their vow of matrimony.” Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-5 reflect that respondents No.6 and 7 filed a protection petition titled ‘Anjali and another vs. State of and others’ before the court of learned Sessions Judge, , claiming threat to their life and li petitioner and his family members. The court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad sent them to protective custody and directed notice to the petitioner and other respondents who put in appearance and sought permission to meet respondent No.6. Application was also moved for psychological counseling of respondent No.6 protective custody. During the hearing of the case on 27.04.2026, learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad while assessing the threat perception spondents No.6 and 7, permitted petitioner therein) to interact with his daughter. respondents No.6 and 7 was extended on 27.04.2026 and again on 04.05.2026, whereafter, on report received from SHO and statement of 6 the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant. Therefore, the High Court has completely erred by taking upon itself the burden of annulling the marriage between the appellant and the respondent no.9 when both stood embedded to reflect that respondents No.6 ‘Anjali and another vs. State of before the court of learned Sessions Judge, , claiming threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the The court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad sent them to protective custody and directed notice to the petitioner and other respondents who put in appearance and sought ondent No.6. Application was also moved for counseling of respondent No.6 and for sending her to protective custody. During the hearing of the case on 27.04.2026, learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad while assessing the threat perception petitioner (respondent No.5 therein) to interact with his daughter. Protective custody of respondents No.6 and 7 was extended on 27.04.2026 and again on report received from SHO and statement of KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 respondents No.6 and 7 withdrawing the protection petition, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. respondent No.7 Sessions Judge, Faridabad, him, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued dire respondent No.6 before the Court. Statements of respondents No.6 and 7 have been is no occasion to suspect that impaired, warranting independent assessment by a qualified psychologist or counsellor. Meeting of petitioner with respondent No.6 has already been Faridabad. For registration of respect to allegations of approach the competent police au jurisdiction, marriage certificate gone into. protection petition filed by responden facie convince that respondent No.6 is in unlawful confinement and illegal custody proceedings in the writ of habeas corpus. fundamental right to choose her life and marry prevail over the right of choice of 6015-2026(O&M) espondents No.6 and 7 withdrawing the protection petition, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Respondent No.6 is major, 22 years of age respondent No.7 having filed a protection petition before learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, claiming to have solemnize him, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued dire respondent No.6 before the Court. Statements of respondents No.6 and 7 have been recorded by learned Sessions J is no occasion to suspect that petitioner’s daughter warranting independent assessment by a qualified psychologist or counsellor. Meeting of petitioner with respondent No.6 has already been facilitated by learned Sessions Judge in the court at Faridabad. For registration of FIR against respondents No.7 and respect to allegations of forgery of record, petitioner is at liberty approach the competent police authorities. In jurisdiction, disputed questions of fact regarding alleged forgery of marriage certificate Annexure P-1 issued by resp Bald allegations of the petitioner protection petition filed by respondents No.6 and 7 convince that respondent No.6 is in unlawful confinement and illegal custody of respondent No.7 to warrant continuation of proceedings in the writ of habeas corpus. fundamental right to choose the person with whom she wishes to spend and marry. The parental love or concern of the petitioner cannot prevail over the right of choice of adult, respondent No. 7 espondents No.6 and 7 withdrawing the protection petition, the Respondent No.6 is major, 22 years of age. She along with having filed a protection petition before learned claiming to have solemnized marriage with him, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued directing production of respondent No.6 before the Court. Statements of respondents No.6 and recorded by learned Sessions Judge in the court and there petitioner’s daughter is psychologically warranting independent assessment by a qualified clinical psychologist or counsellor. Meeting of petitioner with respondent No.6 facilitated by learned Sessions Judge in the court at against respondents No.7 and 8 with record, petitioner is at liberty to thorities. In the exercise of writ disputed questions of fact regarding alleged forgery of issued by respondent No.8 cannot be of the petitioner, in the wake of the ts No.6 and 7, do not even prime convince that respondent No.6 is in unlawful confinement and to warrant continuation of proceedings in the writ of habeas corpus. Respondent No. 7 has a the person with whom she wishes to spend . The parental love or concern of the petitioner cannot espondent No. 6 in choosing KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6015 her life partner. from exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. disposed of. 02.07.2026 Kapil 6015-2026(O&M) her life partner. The petition has no merit and the court from exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition stands dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 8 The petition has no merit and the court must refrain from exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition stands dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No KAPIL 2026.07.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document