MOHD. IKRAM HUSSAIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

MOHD. IKRAM HUSSAIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

The High Court's order committing the appellant for contempt was justified, as appellant was found to have wilfully disobeyed the Court's direction for production of Kaniz Fatima, whom he was found to have custody of. However, the Court noted that proper inquiry should precede a writ nisi for production, especially in factually unclear cases.

Parties
Appellant: Mohd. Ikram Hussain; Respondent No. 1: Mahesh Prashad; Respondent No. 2: State of U.P.; Respondent No. 3: Station House Officer, Kotwali, Allahabad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 October 1963
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeals by Special Leave Against Orders of the Allahabad High Court Dated September 16, 1960 and August 26, 1960
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 1960 dismissed; Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1960, no orders passed.
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Contempt of Court, Private Detention, Writ Jurisdiction, Custody of Alleged Wife
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Habeas Corpus Contempt of Court Private Detention Writ Jurisdiction Custody of Alleged Wife

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Ikram Hussain

Appellant

Mahesh Prashad

Respondent No. 1

State of U.P.

Respondent No. 2

Station House Officer, Kotwali, Allahabad

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeals by Special Leave Against Orders of the Allahabad High Court Dated September 16, 1960 and August 26, 1960

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's order directing production of Kaniz Fatima was justified
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's refusal to comply with the order amounts to contempt
  3. 3 Whether habeas corpus can issue for private detention, particularly for custody by a husband

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's order committing the appellant for contempt was justified, as appellant was found to have wilfully disobeyed the Court's direction for production of Kaniz Fatima, whom he was found to have custody of. However, the Court noted that proper inquiry should precede a writ nisi for production, especially in factually unclear cases.

Court Disposition

Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 1960 dismissed; Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1960, no orders passed.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay costs to respondent no. 1 in Supreme Court.
  • Respondents 2 and 3 to bear their own costs.