IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009
Date of decision : 8.12.2009
Raj Kumar
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
.... Respondents
Present: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana.
****
S.S. SARON, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking
directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to investigate the complaint dated
22.11.2009 (Annexure P1) filed by the petitioner against respondents
No.4 to 6 and their allies for kidnapping the minor daughter of the
petitioner aged above 11 years. A further prayer has been made for
directing respondents No.1 to 3 to intimate about the outcome of their
investigation. It is still further prayed that a direction be issued to
respondents No.1 to 3 to take the custody of the daughter of the
petitioner from respondents No.4 to 6 and hand her over to the
petitioner.
The minor daughter of the petitioner namely Manju aged
about 11 years was working at house No.401, Sector 20, GHS No.1,
Panchkula as a helper for petty household jobs. On 16.11.2009,
Rinku son of Narain (respondent No.4) along with his friend namely
Ramu kidnapped Manju (minor daughter of the petitioner) from
Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [2]
Sector 20 market at Panchkula. Narain (respondent No.5), Mukesh
(respondent No.6) and mother of Rinku (respondent No.4), it is
alleged, connived with Rinku (respondent No.4) to hide the girl.
When the petitioner failed to trace out his minor daughter, he
enquired from the people in locality and came to know about
kidnapping of his daughter. Accordingly, he made a complaint dated
22.11.2009 (Annexure P1) to SHO, Police Station Sector-20,
Panchkula (respondent No.3) for registration of FIR against
respondents No.4 to 6 and mother of respondent No.4 and his friend
Ramu who had connived together in the said criminal act. However,
no action, it is alleged, has been taken on the complaint (Annexure
P1) by the SHO, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula (respondent
No.3).
A copy of the petition was given to the learned counsel
for the State on 30.11.2009 so as to enable him to seek instructions in
the matter. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Chandi
Ram, Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula has submitted that the
minor daughter of the petitioner namely Manju has been traced out
from Ludhiana and she was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate at
Panchkula on 7.12.2009. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was
recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula.
A copy of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Panchkula and the copy of the statement of Manju, daughter of
the petitioner recorded before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class have
been submitted in Court and copy given to the learned counsel for the
petitioner. In terms of the statement of Manju, daughter of the
petitioner recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [3]
her age has been recorded as 18 years and it is stated that she had
known to Rinku (respondent No.4) and about three weeks earlier on
Sunday, she had gone out with him. They had met at Peer Muchala,
Sector-20, Panchkula. There, her brother-in-law (Jija) with whom she
was staying, had seen them and caught them. Thereafter, she was
brought home and was beaten. Then on the following day, she went
to Rinku (respondent No.4) who resides at Ludhiana. She had gone
there on her own. There, they had solemnized their marriage in a
Mandir and started living together. Then her (Manju’s) brother came
to know about it and he got her back from Ludhiana. At that time,
Rinku (respondent No.4) had gone out. It is stated that Rinku had
married her and had not done any forcible act. On the basis of the
statement, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula
recorded that he was satisfied that Manju had given her statement
with her own consent and without any fear, coercion or undue
influence. It is further stated that Manju had expressed her will to go
to her in-laws place i.e. to Rinku at Ludhiana as he was major. So she
was held free to go.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the police is
inquiring as regards the age of Manju and getting her medical
examination conducted as to whether she is above 18 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
date of birth of Manju, minor daughter of the petitioner is 24.9.1998
and she is about 11 years of age only. It is submitted that a certificate
in this regard has been issued by the Sarpanch and another certificate
has been issued by the Child Welfare Officer with regard to age of
Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [4]
Manju. The petitioner may hand over the said certificates to the
Police for the purpose of investigation.
Keeping in view the order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class in which the age of age of Manju is recorded as
above 18 years and the question regarding age still being inquired
into and investigated by the Police; at this stage no directions are
liable to be given for the purpose of investigation into the complaint
(Annexure P1). The field of investigation is the domain of the
Police and this Court is normally not to interfere in respect of the
same unless it is shown that the Police has failed to carry out its
duties. In case the petitioner is aggrieved against the inaction of the
Police in not effectively investigating the case, he may in the first
instance seek his remedy in the Court of the concerned Judicial
Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. In
Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 392 it
was observed that after registering a FIR, no proper investigation is
held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under
Section 156 (3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If
such an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC is filed before the
Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also
can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where,
according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made.
The Magistrate can also under the said provision monitor the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
In the circumstances, no further directions are liable to
be issued by this Court. The petitioner may submit the copies of the
birth certificates, which he has with him before the Police. Besides,
Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [5]
the petitioner may, if so advised, file an application before the
concerned Magistrate for effective investigation of the case. It is
needless to submit that if such an application is filed, the learned
Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law.
The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
December 8, 2009
amit