Habeas Corpus Petition Stands Satisfied Once Major Corpus Exercises Free Will to Reside With Petitioner

The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition alleging that his wife, Smt. Khushboo Akhter (the corpus), was being illegally detained by her relatives (respondents 6-8) after they were intercepted and harassed by taxi drivers and police at Chanderkote while traveling to Chandigarh

The petitioner claimed they married of their own free will

On June 3, 2026, the corpus stated before the Registrar Judicial that she married the petitioner voluntarily

However, the Registrar opined she was under coercion and recommended her placement in a shelter home for "emotional treatment"

The High Court initially followed this recommendation, but the Supreme Court, in SLP(Cr) No. 11476/2026, stayed that order and directed her release to a destination of her choice

Subsequently, the corpus was released and rejoined the petitioner

1. Whether the prayer for a writ of Habeas Corpus survives after the corpus has been released and joined the petitioner pursuant to a Supreme Court order

2. Whether further directions are required regarding the alleged police brutalities and the investigation of the Zero FIR registered by the petitioner

The court applied the principles governing the writ of Habeas Corpus, which is a prerogative writ intended to secure the liberty of a person unlawfully detained

The court also respected the hierarchy of the judiciary by adhering to the interim directions issued by the Supreme Court of India regarding the immediate release and security of a major person expressing her own choice

the court acknowledged the procedural law regarding criminal investigations, specifically the transition of a "Zero FIR" (registered regardless of jurisdiction) to the concerned territorial Police Station under the Code of Criminal Procedure/applicable J&K laws

The Court observed that the primary relief sought—the production and liberty of Khushboo Akhter—had been effectively granted following the Supreme Court's intervention

Since the corpus, a major, confirmed her desire to live with the petitioner and had already joined him, the "illegal custody" aspect of the petition was rendered moot

Regarding the petitioner's secondary grievances concerning "brutal torture" by the Chanderkote police and the alleged reluctance of authorities to comply with the release orders, the Court noted that a Zero FIR had already been registered at Police Station Quilla Panipat and subsequently transferred to Police Station Chanderkote for investigation

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had already invoked the appropriate alternative legal remedy for criminal misconduct, no further extraordinary directions were necessary in the present Habeas Corpus proceedings

The petition was disposed of with the direction that no further orders were required at this stage regarding the alleged police excesses, as a criminal investigation is already underway

the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court afresh if dissatisfied with the progress or conduct of the investigation into the transferred Zero FIR