By Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate

Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court

Email id: vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com

Mobile No.: +91 9810081079

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vpdalmia/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vpdalmia

Twitter: @vpdalmia

And Sarthak Saxena

mity Law School, Delhi

saxenasarthak@outlook.com

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a common-law writ, issued by a
court docket or decide directing one who holds one other in custody to
produce the individual earlier than the court docket for some specified objective. It
is visualised as an efficient means to supply a fast treatment to a
one that has misplaced his private liberty with none authorized
justification. Therefore, it can’t be used for complaining towards
previous unlawful detention.

The challenge of the misuse of the writ of habeas corpus got here to the
forefront, when the Supreme Court, needed to tackle the state of affairs on
a current case by which a petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus
below Article 32 of the Constitution, towards the unlawful detention
of his spouse by his household (on this case, the daddy), as towards
submitting a grievance below Section 97 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed
that “[Section] 97 has develop into a dead-letter within the Code
due to these short-cuts.”, that means thereby that within the
habeas corpus issues the recourse must be first taken below
Section 97 of Cr.P.C.

Section 97 Cr.P.C. states the next:

“Search for individuals wrongfully confined.— If any
District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the
top notch has cause to consider that any individual is confined below
such circumstances that the confinement quantities to an offence, he
could challenge a search-warrant, and the individual to whom such warrant is
directed could seek for the individual so confined; and such search
shall be made in accordance therewith, and the individual, if discovered,
shall be instantly taken earlier than a Magistrate, who shall make such
order as within the circumstances of the case appears
correct.”

In Marotrao S/O Shamrao Pachare & Ors. Vs. Sou. Usha
Marotrao Pachare¹ the Bombay High Court noticed that:
“The motion below part 97 is to fulfill emergency. A
affordable perception by the Magistrate that the confinement of the
individual involved quantities to an offence is sinequanon for the
train of the jurisdiction below this part. Unless there’s
materials earlier than the Magistrate and the Magistrate believes that the
confinement of the individual involved is an offence, the jurisdiction
below part 97 couldn’t be exercised in any respect. Section 97 doesn’t
authorise the Magistrate to enter the disputed questions as to
which of the claimants is entitled to custody of a minor. Such
query will at all times should be left to the Civil Courts empowered
below the totally different statutes. It can be additionally past the scope of
jurisdiction of the Magistrate to evaluate the comparative deserves and
demerits of the declare of a father and mom or different individual
claiming the custody and to seek out out in whose custody the effectively
being of the minor is protected.”

In a separate resolution, the Bombay High Court additionally held that
part doesn’t impose any obligation on the Magistrate to carry a
detailed inquiry or to report such findings that are essential
after adjudication or entitle the affected celebration to the appropriate
to be heard earlier than the Magistrate points a
search-warrant.²

Similarly, within the case of Ammara Begum v. Habil Mea³,
(1962) 2 Cri LJ 159, it was held by the Gujarat High Court
that  “when the individual involved states earlier than the
Magistrate that she was not wrongfully confined, however she was there
of her personal accord, the Magistrate can not thereafter give any
instructions relating to the individual’s custody.”

In Piyush Chamaria and Ors. v. Hemanta JitanI and
Ors.⁴ the Gauhati High Court, whereas coping with the
rationale of making use of below Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. in a case of
kidnapping of a minor, noticed the next: “…what
Section 97 requires is “confinement” of an individual, which
quantities to an offence… If a Magistrate is happy {that a} minor
has been wrongfully confined, it’s his responsibility to challenge search
warrant for restoration of such a toddler even from the custody of such
an individual, who could maintain the custody of the kid innocently or
with out realizing the truth.”

Footnotes

1. 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 443

2. Pravin Singh v. Biharilal Singh, 1989
Cri LJ (Bom) 1386.

3. (1962) 2 Cri LJ 159

4. Criminal Petition No. 257 of 2008

© 2020, Vaish Associates Advocates,

All rights reserved

Advocates, 1st & eleventh Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy
Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content material of this text is meant to supply a normal
information to the subject material. Specialist skilled recommendation ought to
be sought about your particular circumstances. The views expressed in
this text are solely of the authors of this text.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Criminal Law from India