URMILA DEVI vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 13th October, 2025 + W.P.(CRL) 3341/2025 URMILA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manmohan Jha, Mr. Anoop Kumar, Mr. Vikas Saini, Mr. Krishan Shokeen, Mr. Kawalpreet Singh, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Madesiya, Mr. Vineet Jain, Mr. Manish Malik, Mr. Ashish Balyan, Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur, Advs with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and petitioner, inter alia, seeks directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents to produce her missing daughter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.10.2025, Ms. Kannu (daughter of petitioner), aged 19 years, left her residence to go to her college i.e. Laxmi Bai College, Delhi and did not return thereafter. Petitioner tried her best to search for her but it was of no avail. Thereafter, on 04.10.2025, the petitioner approached the police. 3. The petitioner in her missing report alleged that one suspect namely, Prince, son of Sandeep, had allured and misled her daughter. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3341/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:14.10.2025 17:14:56 4. Status report dated 13.10.2025 has been submitted during the course of proceedings and same is taken on record. 5. Today, the missing daughter of the petitioner has also been produced in the Court by the respondent-State. 6. We have interacted with the girl in question who is 19 years of age and is currently in BA Second Year. 7. She submits that she was not allured or enticed away by anyone. At the same time, she also wants to go b