The Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 28) slammed the Uttar Pradesh police for arresting two men on the charges of kidnapping from Delhi without investigating the details of an eloping case properly and warned that such actions will not be tolerated in the national capital.
The case involved a woman who had eloped and got married to a man from Delhi out of her own will. The court was hearing the petition of the couple who alleged that their parents were threatening them ever since they had eloped and got married in July.
Based on the complaint made by the girl’s parents, the UP police had taken the husband’s father and brother from their residence. The two have not yet returned home and their whereabouts are unknown, said media reports.
The court came down heavily on the UP police pointing out that these tactics will not work in Delhi. “Ye kaam na yahan Dilli main nahi chalega … illegal kaam koi bhi …(this will not work in Delhi…any kind of illegal work) You come to Delhi and pick up people and then show their arrest from Shamli… this illegal action we won’t allow here,” Justice Mukta Gupta told the UP police officials in the court, according to an Indian Express report.
Also read: ‘Vague response’ won’t do, says SC; forms panel to probe Pegasus scandal
“We have no solution if you guys work with your eyes and mind shut,” said the judge, adding that the police cannot just pick anyone at will and take them! “That’s what the law says, isn’t it? You have violated the law at every step. This will not be tolerated in Delhi,” observed the court.
The UP police told the court that the husband’s father and brother were arrested in a case registered under Section 366 IPC on September 6. The judge however criticised the police for arresting the husband’s kin on the allegations of kidnapping without first ascertaining the girl’s stand and her age.
Pointing out that the woman’s age in the FIR is mentioned as 21, the judge said that if the police and the investigating officer have not read the basic details in the case file, the court had no solution to offer in this case.