Crl. W. P. No.653 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. W. P. No.653 of 2009
Date of Decision : July 11, 2011
Ratta Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. P. K. Dwivedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab
for respondents no.1 and 2.
Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anil K. Joshi, Advocate
for respondents no.3 and 4.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Petitioner Ratta Singh has filed this Habeas Corpus writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that
petitioner’s son Piara Singh has been detained since 22.05.2009 by private
respondents no.3 and 4, with whom the alleged detenue had been working
earlier as labourer and then as tractor driver. Missing report was lodged by
the petitioner on 26.05.2009.
Crl. W. P. No.653 of 2009 2
On the other hand, respondents have alleged that FIR was
registered against the alleged detenue on 25.05.2009 under Section 328 of
the Indian Penal Code for allegedly administering poison to respondent
no.3. However, in the said FIR, cancellation report has been submitted
because poison was not detected in the vomit of respondent no.3.
During pendency of the writ petition, respondents no.1 and 2
were directed to trace the petitioner’s son. Special Investigation Team (SIT)
was also constituted for the purpose. However, respondents no.1 and 2 have
not been able to trace the petitioner’s son in spite of efforts.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
As noticed herein before, FIR against the petitioner’s son Piara
Singh – alleged detenue was lodged on 25.05.2009, whereas missing report
by the petitioner was lodged thereafter on 26.05.2009. In addition to it, all
out efforts have been made by the police to trace the alleged detenue. Even
SIT headed by Senior Superintendent of Police has not been able to trace
the alleged detenue.
Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the
petitioner prayed that the police be directed to register FIR against
respondents no.3 and 4 regarding alleged detention and disappearance of
petitioner’s son. However, for this purpose, writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus cannot be entertained. On the other hand, for lodging FIR, the
petitioner has to approach the concerned police authorities and if they do
Crl. W. P. No.653 of 2009 3
not register the FIR, the petitioner has to approach the concerned Illaqa
Magistrate, who may either take the cognizance of the complaint himself or
may direct the police to register FIR, as may be deemed appropriate by the
concerned Magistrate. The aforesaid prayer made by the counsel for the
petitioner for direction to police authorities to register FIR cannot be
accepted in the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition. Moreover, it has been
categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aleque Padamsee and
others vs. Union of India and others reported as 2007 (3) Law Herald
(Supreme Court) 2269 and further reinforced in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of
U.P. reported as 2007 (5) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 3910 that the
High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India or under inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, should not direct registration of FIR and for this
purpose, the aggrieved person has to approach the concerned Magistrate.
This Habeas Corpus writ petition has remained pending for
more than two years. Strenuous efforts were made by the police authorities
to trace the petitioner’s son, but he has not been traced. No useful purpose
would be served by keeping this Habeas Corpus petition pending any more.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
July 11, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE