Telangana High Court
WP/24530/2005 of Smt. shraddha Dikshit, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Date:27-12-2005 WRIT PETITION No.24530 OF 2005 BETWEEN: Smt.Shradda Dikshit. …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada, A.P. & others. …Respondents ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
--Date:27122005
WRIT PETITION No.24530 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
Smt.Shradda Dikshit.
…Petitioner
And
The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada,A.P. & others.
…Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the actionof the 1[st] respondent in not taking any action and not investigatinginto the complaint lodged by her husband on 7-8-2005 in respect of missing of her son Kshitij Dixit and not registering the case as illegaland arbitrary.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader for Home.
The petitioner is the mother of the missing man Kshitij Dixit. It isstated that her son married the third respondent at Arya Samaj,Faridabad of Haryana State without the consent of the petitioner andher husband. The third respondent lodged a complaint on 17-7-2005with the Sub Inspector of Police, II-Town Police Station, Kakinadaalleging that her husband Kshitij Dixit while working in PopulationServices Internation was missing since 16-7-2005 and requested theStation House Officer to take necessary action according to law.Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.126/2005 wasregistered under the Head – Man Missing and investigation hastaken up. While so, the husband of the petitioner also made arepresentation on 7-8-2005 to the first respondent, stating that theStation House Officer, II-Town Police Station, Kakinada has not takenany action.
The first respondent filed a counter stating that in fact, the marriagewas taken place against the consent of the petitioner and herhusband and on the day of the marriage itself, things were notpeaceful and the petitioner slapped the missing man and did notallow the married couple to enter the house and the family membersof the petitioner beat the missing man in the house of the thirdrespondent and the said incident was also recorded in the Daily Diaryof Faridabad Outpost at the instance of the third respondent.
Thus, it appears that the family members have not maintained goodrelationship with the missing man and they have not shown any loveand affection and not performed their duties and obligations and notbehaved in a proper and justifiable manner. No doubt, all sorts ofallegations have been made against the third respondent, but acounter has been filed stating that investigation is going on to traceout the husband of the third respondent on all angles and as and when the missing man is traced, he will be produced before theconcerned court. In view of the aforesaid counter, no further actionneed to be taken in this writ petition.
The writ petition is closed accordingly. No order as to costs.
________________
V.ESWARAIAH, J
Date: 27-12-2005.
Shr.