Case Title: INDRAKALI VERMA Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Case No: W.P.(CRL) 1611/2024
Decided on: 20th May , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Facts of the case
Indrakali Verma, the petitioner in this case, sought a writ of habeas corpus to force the court to produce her son Vikas, daughter-in-law Rachna, and grandsons. According to the petitioner, they were being held illegally. But it turned out that the son, daughter-in-law, and grandsons were not being held illegally; rather, they were living apart from the petitioner on their own volition during the legal proceedings. Through video conference, the son verified this information. It was further observed that the petitioner is actively seeking criminal prosecution against the defendants, having previously filed a similar petition (W.P. (Crl) No. 2359/21) which was withdrawn. In the end, the court dismissed the petition since it was determined that no additional order was required because of the voluntary residence of the relatives are kept apart from the petitioner.
Issues
1. Was the petitioner’s son and his family members wrongfully held, as stated in the writ of habeas corpus petition?
2. Based on the conversation with the son during the video conference, does the petitioner’s claim of wrongful imprisonment have merit, in the opinion of the court?
3. Did the petitioner’s allegation of unjustified detention receive enough support from the court to warrant the petition’s dismissal?
4. In deciding not to issue additional orders in this matter, did the court take into account the petitioner’s prior actions such as withdrawing a comparable petition and pursuing criminal prosecution into account?
5. Did the petitioner’s family members confirm during the court proceedings that they were living apart from her voluntarily?
Legal Provisions
Writ of Habeas Corpus: The petitioner requested a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure that allows someone to request release from unjustified incarceration or detention [T2]. Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) Section 156(3): Following the dismissal of an earlier petition [T1], the petitioner was granted permission to present evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After receiving a complaint of an offense [T1], a magistrate may question the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The petitioner’s claims and the court’s ruling in the case were taken into account when evaluating these legislative provisions.
Appellant Contentions
Seeking a writ of habeas corpus to bring her son Vikas, daughter-in-law Rachna, and grandsons before the court, the appellant, Indrakali Verma, alleged in the case [T2] that they were being wrongfully held. Nevertheless, it became clear throughout the proceedings that the family members were not being held in violation of the law; rather, they were living apart from the petitioner willingly. Through video conference, the son verified this information. The petitioner made some initial arguments, but the court dismissed the case after concluding that the claim of unlawful imprisonment lacked merit [T1].
Respondent Contentions
With the help of attorneys Priyam Agarwal and Shivesh Kaushik as well as counsel Mr. Sanjay Lao, the respondent in this matter, the State of the NCT of Delhi, argued that the petitioner’s family members her son Vikas, daughter-in-law Rachna, and grandsons were not being held in violation of the law. The son’s remark made during their video conference with the court provided evidence in favor of this claim. According to the respondent, the family members were not being forcibly detained and were living apart from the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent contended that there was no need for additional orders in this matter [T1].
Court Analysis and Judgement
The court examined the arguments made by the petitioner and the respondent in the matter of Indrakali Verma v. State of the NCT of Delhi. Through video conference, the petitioner’s son confirmed to the court that he was not being held illegally and that he, along with his wife and small children, were living apart from the petitioner freely. Additionally, the son said that the petitioner was welcome to see him at his home [T1]. The court determined that the petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus was without merit in light of the facts that were given and the dearth of evidence that backed up the petitioner’s allegation of wrongful imprisonment. The petitioner had previously withdrawn a similar suit, the court found, and was already prosecuting the responders in criminal court. As a result, the court determined that no more orders were necessary in this matter and granted the petition [T1]. The evidence that was produced during the proceedings ultimately served as the foundation for the court’s decision, indicating that the petitioner’s family members were living apart from her freely and were not being wrongfully held.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
