Poonam Goswami v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ ofHabeas Corpus directingRespondentNo.1/Stateto produce in person the Petitioner's daughter, namely, Ms. Priti Goswami. On the last date of hearing, we had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to look into the matter personally and to submit status report on affidavit giving the details of the efforts made to trace out the missing girl. Pursuant to our order dated 1.10.2013, status report has W.PJCRU 1407/2013 Paee 1 of[4] 2013:DHC:8121-DB been filed on affidavit by Mr. Rajender Singh Sagar, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East Distt., Delhi along with the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC of Ms. Priti Goswami, whose production issought for inthe present Writ Petition.

2. On perusal of the affidavit of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and the statement of Ms. Priti Goswami recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the following facts clearly emerge:- Ms. Priti Goswami, daughter of the Petitioner was aged about 21 years on the date ofher production before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 2"'' April, 2013 and was a student ofB.A. Final Year at that time. She had gone for the recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC accompanied by her parents and in fact the presence ofher mother Mrs. Poonam Goswami has been recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his proceedings of the same date. In the aforesaid statement of Ms. Priti Goswami, she has clearly stated that she is a student of B.A. Final Year and on 28.3.2013 from Rainbow Coaching Centre she had gone to her friend Zeeshan and thereafter they stayed at the house of Zeeshan's friend W.P.fCRL) 1407/2013 Paee2of[4] and from there on 29.3.2013 they had gone to the Shrine of Vaishno Devi and from there returned to Delhi on 31'^ March/r^ April, 2013. She fiirther stated that she ofher own free will and accord had gone from her house and that she wanted to live with her friend Zeeshan. She stated that no wrong act {"galat kaam"^ had been committed with her.

3. It may also be noted atthis juncture that on September 6, 2013, a statement was made by Mr. Pawan Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel for the State thatafter a quarrel which hadtaken place before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the boy and the girl had moved to an unknown destination.

4. From the aforesaid, it is amply borne out that Ms.Priti Goswami has attained the age of majority and in fact is more than 21 years of age. She is also well qualified, being a student of B.A. Final Year. On 2"^^ April, 2013, she ofher own free will and accord made a statement under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate that shehad gone to Vaishno Deviwithher friend Zeeshan from Rainbow Coaching Centre of her own free will without telling her parents. She had thereafter returned to her house and in fact was W.P.fCRL.i 1407/2013 Paee3of[4] jo accompanied by her parents at the time ofrecording ofher statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. No physical or sexual exploitation has taken place with her. She clearly and categorically expressed her desire to stay with Zeeshan. In view of her said statement made before the Metropolitan Magistrate, she was allowed to go freely. Final report ofcancellation was prepared on 26^ April, 2013, which is stated to have been forwarded to the ACP, Shahdara on 5^ August,

2013.

5. In view of the aforesaid and keeping in mind the fact that Ms. Priti Goswami is a major who of her own free will and accord had chosen to live with her friend Zeeshan, no useful purpose will be served by protracting the present proceedings. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. October 08,2013 km A W.P.(CRU 1407/2013 J /L ETRAPAI REVAKHETRAPAL JUDGE JUDGE Paee[4] of[4]