- (1.) When this case was heard on 2.2.2012, we had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to give notice to the learned counsel for respondents Sri V.P. Gupta that this case would be taken up today. He has given the notice on 6.2.2012 but Sri Gupta has refused to take the notice. He has filed the notice which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. In this case, an unclaimed child was picked up by G.R.P., Amroha on 11.10.2008. As no one came forward to claim the custody of the 2 and a half years old child, the G.R.P. Chauki Incharge published an advertisement in the news paper that the child may be taken by anyone, who could show that he was the child's natural guardian. When no natural guardian of the child appeared, then the petitioner approached the G.R.P. Railway Station Amroha that he has no male issue and he has sufficient property to look after the child and the child may be given in his custody. On the petitioner's application, the child was handed over to him on 20.10.2008. It appears that in the meantime, one Laxman and his wife Saroj who had filed an FIR on 4.9.2007 regarding disappearance and kidnapping of their child under Section 364 I.P.C. came forward before the police and claimed that the said child was actually theirs. On 13.7.2010, the S.H.O. of P.S. Majhola, district Moradabad reached the house of the petitioner and took away the child from him and handed him over to respondent No. 8 Laxman. As the police had taken away the child from the petitioner without approaching the Child Welfare Committee or following any legal formalities, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus petition before this Court.
(2.) On 15.12.2010, an earlier Division Bench of this Court passed an order for getting a D.N.A. test of the child and Laxman and Smt. Saroj done to decide whether the child was actually their progeny. The D.N.A. report has been received which mentions that Smt. Saroj and Laxman are not the biological parents of the child Sachin.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been following the due process of law and acting in an honest manner for trying to obtain custody of the child, but the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, appear to have prevailed over the police of P.S. Majhola who came to the house of the petitioner and forcibly took away the child on 13.7.2010 and to have handed him over to respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who falsely claimed to be the biological parents of the child.;