- (1.) THE Investigating Officer, Ms. Vijay Laxmi Pandey, has appeared in the Court and is directed to produce Sri Manoram Agnihotri (father of petitioner) and his wife who according to said Investigating Officer in Jail in connection with the F. I. R. lodged by the respondent No. 3 in Case Crime No. 165 of 2005 under Section 366, I. P. C. , P. S. Krishna Nagar, Lucknow tomorrow at 10. 15 a. m. alongwith the record of other cases, if any, relating to the arrest of those aforementioned persons. THE A. P. P. informs that they are in judicial custody under orders of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate. THE Registrar, High Court , Lucknow Bench is directed to procure the original record of the said Case Crime No. 165 of 2005, pending in the Court of Special C. J. M. (Custom), Lucknow and produce the same at 10. 15 a. m. tomorrow. Ms. Neena Agnihotri has filed her own affidavit in support of the present writ petition filed by the Nitin Agnihotri (an enrolled Advocate) to support the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner, Nitin Agnihotri. Smt. Neena Agnihotri (i. e. Neena Arora) has stated before us that she is 25 years of age. She has done post graduation and working as teacher. On being examined by us she has categorically stated that she has willfully and voluntarily, considering all pros and cons, married the petitioner. . Nitin Agnihotri and wants to stay with her said husband. She has further stated that she has been pressurized by the respondents (particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3) not to live with her husband and go back to the house of respondent No. 3 (her father's place ). From the demeanour of Ms. Neena Agnihotri, we are satisfied that her statement is being made without coercion, or under threat or pressure. Her statement is out of her free will. She is major and free to live wherever she desires. She can understand her good and bad and conscious of her well being. In that view of the matter, prima facie we find that F. I. R. against Nitin Agnihotri has been made with oblique motive. THE respondents-authorities are hereby restrained to interfere with the peaceful living or raid the house of the accused persons including petitioner and said Ms. Neena Agnihotri (i. e. Neena Arora) in the aforementioned F. I. R. dated 9-6-2005 registered as Case No. 165 of 2005 under Section 366 I. P. C. , P. S. Krishnanagar, District Lucknow. Any violation of our order shall be viewed seriously. We further direct, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow to personally ensure that respondents do not act any breach of the order passed by us today and take appropriate steps by providing such protection to their life and body as may be required. THE responsibility of life and welfare of Nitin Agnihotri, his wife Neena Agnihotri and their family members (particularly the accused mentioned in the F. I. R.) shall be of the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and the respondent No. 2. We further issue an ad interim order particularly against the respondent No. 3 Sardar Mahendra Singh not to resort any such act which may directly or indirectly interfere with this Court's order or else this Court shall take such action which will be deemed fit to ensure that muscle power is not above "rule of Law". THE Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench is directed to contact today the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow for providing such protection and force as may be required so that Ms. Neena Agnihotri may go at the place she desires and stay there safely. Ms. Neena Agnihotri shall also appear tomorrow at 10. 15 a. m. under the police force protection". 27-6-2005 Ap Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for all the concerned parties without payment of necessary charges today". 27-6-2005. "
(2.) TODAY Sardar Mahendra Singh in person, respondent No. 3, alongwith Sri Randhir Singh, Advocate appeared before us. Nitin Agnihotri/petitioner and Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) who filed affidavit in support of Writ Petition also appeared in person. His father and mother have also been brought from Jail. The submissions made on behalf of said Sardar Mahendra Singh (father of Ms. Neena who is major) show that he is not prepared to accept the hard fact of her daughter marrying the petitioner or at least not willing to live with him. He appears to have made an issue of 'prestige' and 'ego'. He even accuses and questions the wisdom of existing law which guarantees liberty to adult citizens to take decisions by themselves. Respondent No. 3 and his Counsel have raised apprehension that his daughter may not have been murdered. This apprehension of respondent No. 3 is misconceived/misplaced per se against record. Such a submission apparently is, nothing but an eye wash and an afterthought to cover up his motive get back the custody of Ms. Neena, who is now married to Nitin and entitled to live and stay with him. Perusal of the F. I. R. dated 9-6-2005/annexure-1 to the writ petition indicates that said respondent No. 3 was fully aware of his daughter's 'acquaintance' and 'affair' with the petitioner. Above F. I. R. categorically mentions that daughter of complainant/respondent No. 3 (Ms. Neena) had left her parents house with an intention to marry the petitioner. There is not even an iota of material or allegation in F. I. R. to show that accused persons (mentioned in said F. I. R.) abducted or took Ms. Neena Agnihotri (ne Arora) against her wishes with an intention to murder her. Record and conduct of Ms. Neena shows that she had willingly left her father's house, happily married and wish to live with her husband and in-laws.
(3.) WE are satisfied that F. I. R. has been lodged with an object to coerce the petitioner and his family members to succumb to the personal whim of Respondent No. 3 so that he may procure custody of Ms. Neena. We called for the record of Case Crime No. 165 of 2005 pending in the Court of Special C. J. M. (Custom) Lucknow. Record show that bail application filed on behalf of Manoram Agnihotri and his wife, (accused in the said Criminal case who happens to be father and mother of Nitin Agnihotri/petitioner) was rejected.;