Gujarat High Court
SCR.A/424/2000 of CHANDRAKANT UJAMSHI BRAHMBHATT Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 14 March 2001
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 424 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 424 of 2000
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAKANT UJAMSHI BRAHMBHATTVersus STATE OF RAJASTHAN -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PK JANI for Petitioner NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent No. 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 6 MR BG JANI for Respondent No. 7, 8, 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS
and
MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS)
Page 1 of 3
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing all the respondents to produce before this Court the petitioner's minor daughter Namita, aged 17 years. It is stated in the petition that on 13.3.2000, the petitioner's daughter was not found and, therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the concerned police station. It appears that the same was not treated as a complaint in the first instance and simply an entry was made in the station diary. It appears that the petitioner thereafter found that one Sunil B. Varma who is also residing in the same society and who is a native of Rajasthan was not traceable. Ultimately, the petitioner lodged FIR against the said Sunil Varma, his brother and his parents. It is the case of the petitioner that even though he had requested police to search his daughter, she is not traceable since 13.3.2000 and, therefore, he has filed the present petition.
2. This Court, on 16.5.2000, issued notice to the
2. This Court, on 16.5.2000, issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable on 1.6.2000. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time. Not only that, in the meantime, at the request of the petitioner, the respondents no. 7 to 9, the parents and the brother of respondent no.5 were added as party respondents. The said respondents have filed affidavit in the present proceedings wherein it has been pointed out that they have made sincere efforts and spent lot of money to trace out the respondent no.5 who is alleged to have kidnapped the daughter of the petitioner. They have recently received a letter alleged to have been written by the daughter of the petitioner dated 26.6.2000. Even the Investigating Officer has also produced similar letter alleged to have been written by the daughter of the petitioner. On perusing the same, it appears to us that the girl had left her parental house of her own free will and is happily staying with respondent no.5. She has also stated that she has become pregnant. She has further stated that it was difficult for her to stay at her parental house. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is further stated that they had given an advertisement in the newspaper long back i.e. on 17.10.1996 informing the public not to enter into any monetary transactions with the respondent no.5 as the respondent no.5 was not in the control of respondents no. 7 to 9. It is not in dispute that the said respondents no.7 to 9 had challenged the criminal prosecution launched against them by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 3161 of 2000 before this Court for quashing the said proceedings and this Court, by its order dated 20.2.2001, quashed the same.
Page 2 of 3
3. The above stated facts prima facie go to suggest that the respondents no. 7 to 9 have no control over the respondent no.5 and it further appears to us that the daughter of the petitioner had left her parental house with the respondent no.5 on her own free will. In the letter alleged to have been written by her to the police, she has specifically stated that because of the harassment caused by her parents, she had left the parental house at her own will. Whether she in fact wrote such letters or she left the parental home at her own free will or whether she was kidnapped are essentially the questions of fact which cannot be investigated in the present proceedings. Suffice it to say that having gone through various affidavits filed by the Investigating Officers including the CID Crime Branch who was later on entrusted the investigation, we are satisfied that the investigating agency has done their best to trace out the daughter of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5. Issuance of public advertisement in newspaper, publishing photographs in TV, even visiting the known places not only in the State of Gujarat, but even in Rajasthan and initiating proceedings against the absconding respondent no.5 are the sufficient efforts on the part of the investigating agencies to trace out the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent no.5. In any case, the present proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
4. In the result, we dispose of this matter by giving directions to the Investigating Officer to submit progress report every three months before the Registrar till the investigation is over.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged.
���------------
sonar/-
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…