$~34
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
% 				        Date of decision:31st October, 2025
+ 	W.P.(CRL) 3548/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32107/2025
	TARUNA						   .....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Dinesh Malik (DHCLSC) with Mr. Puneet Jain and Ms. Kiffi Aggarwal, Advocates. 
				versus
	STATE THROUGH SHO PS JAHANGIR PURI  & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through:	Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC with Insp. Somil Sharma.
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T  

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 and petitioner, inter alia, seeks directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents to produce the missing son of petitioner who has been taken away by respondents no. 4 and 5 in the year 2021. 
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the on 16.08.2021 and 17.08.2021, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 visited the petitioner unannounced and gave her spiked sweets, took her signatures on a blank piece of paper under false pretenses. Thus, as per her case, respondents no. 4 and 5 took away her son in 2021, renamed him, and falsely claimed adoption on the strength of her signatures taken on blank paper. 
3. The incident is of the year 2021 and, thus, there is, admittedly, delay of around four years in filing of the present petition. 
4. Whether the adoption deed is validly executed or got prepared fraudulently is a question of fact which cannot be decided in writ petition of present nature. The aspect of delay also, somewhat, goes against the petitioner. 
5. The present petition, therefore, does not call for any interference and is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate judicial forum for seeking appropriate remedy, as permissible under law.
6. All rights and contentions of parties are, however, left open. 


(VIVEK CHAUDHARY)
							    JUDGE
						          


            (MANOJ JAIN)
      									 JUDGE	
OCTOBER 31, 2025/sw/PB
		

W.P.(CRL) 3548/2025 						1