Deva Lal vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.—None of the advocates for the parties are present. Petitioner Deva Lal is present in person.

Respondent No. 3 SHO, Police Station Kachola, Distt. Bhiwara Mr. Girwar Singh and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara Mr. Gopal Mewara have produced the corpus Mamta in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court on 12.08.2009 and have submitted that the age of the corpus is 14 years and they have already arrested the Respondents No. 4 Kishan Lal on 14.08.2009 on the basis of the statement of corpus Mamta, who was recovered on 13.08.2009. According to the Dy. S.P., during the investigation corpus has not named the Respondent No. 5 Rajesh and Respondent No. 6 Pappu in kidnapping.

Corpus has been recovered ans she seems to be a minor as per the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government Primary School, Chokirada (Ralayata), Panchayat Samiti Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara as the date of birth of the corpus is shown to be 14.09.1995, i.e. her age is 14 years, but as per the medical certificate her age is 20 years. We have also ascertained the age from the corpus and she seems to be minor and willing to go with her parents who are present in the Court.

Without expressing any opinion about the age of the corpus, we direct that the corpus be permitted to live with her parents.

However, from the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the complaint was filed by the present petitioner on 09.06.2009 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara and the same was forwarded to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 10.06.2009, by the complaint seems to have been received at the concerned Police Station on 12.08.2009 by post. Why this delay of more than two months has crept in, be enquired into by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and appropriate action be taken against the erring officer for not sending the complaint to the police in time. However, in case the erring party is presiding officer himself, the same should be brought to the notice of the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court as it appears that due to not sending the complaint in time before the police, the complainant had to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by moving this habeas corpus petition.

With the observation made above, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of.