High CourtsSingle Bench

Gulab Singh vs Dharmendra Patel and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 13 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 MP CK 0107

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 5231 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 842 words

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner submits that his brother Ashok (corpus) was working with respondents No. 1 and 2. It is alleged that he was in the wrongful custody of the said persons and they be directed to produce and hand over the corpus to the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply and have stated in specific that the corpus is not in their custody. Police Administration has also filed the progress report along with relevant documents. It is contended that the corpus was not found in the custody of respondents No. 1 and 2 and police is in search of the corpus. It is contended that the corpus was searched at various places including at Ambala, Orchha, Mahoba, Hartalpur etc.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

There is no material on record to show that the corpus is in custody of respondents No. 1 and 2. Thus, I am unable to hold that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to produce the corpus. One Pankaj Lodhi gave a statement that corpus was working in some Dhaba and not with respondents No. 1 and 2. Similarly, Chintu and Jeetu''s statements are filed, which shows that the corpus proceeded towards Ambala. The progress report of police shows that he could not be traced at Ambala. In the opinion of this Court, there is no material on record to show that the corpus is in the custody of private respondents herein. At best, it may be a case of "Gum Insan".

4.

A Divison Bench of this Court in 2011(4) MPLJ 609 (Lakhan Singh Rajput Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) has opined that a writ of habeas corpus petition could not be converted into a petition of investigation in regard to search of a missing person. In para 12 and 13 of this judgment reads as under:-

12.

From the aforesaid judgments of Hon''ble the Supreme Court and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shriram Gupta (supra), it is clear that writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when there is an assertion of wrongful confinement. The habeas corpus petition could not be converted into a petition of investigation in regard to search of a missing person. However, it is also to be remembered that personal liberty of a person is an important right and the police has duty to search out the missing person and also take all efforts to find out whereabouts of the missing person, especially in cases where the girls are minor or the corpus is a lady because there is a possibility that the girl or lady may be killed, kidnapped or may be sold out for illegal trafficking, hence, the onus on the police in such cases is heavy and it is the duty of police Authorities to take all efforts to find out whereabouts of the corpus and produce the same before the Court.

13.

In this view of the aforesaid facts, petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions:-

(1) That the police Authorities shall take all the steps to search out the missing person and it shall also take help from other wings of the police specially the C.I.D. wing.

(2) The Police Authorities are also directed to publish photo and personal informations in regard to corpus in newspapers and Doordarshan and publish further information that any person who finds out the missing person the same be informed to police in regard to whereabouts of the missing person. If the corpus be traced out then he or she shall be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of concerned district. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall record statement of the corpus and in accordance with statement and looking to age of the corpus whether she is minor or major pass appropriate order of custody of the corpus.

5.

A summary enquiry has been conducted by the police and corpus was not found in the custody of private respondents. Thus, nothing more can be done in this habeas corpus jurisdiction. Accordingly, I deem it proper to follow the directions, which were issued by the Division Bench in Lakhan Singh Rajput (supra). Accordingly, the police authorities are directed to take all possible steps to search out the missing person and for that it shall also take help from other wings of police specially the CID wing. The Police Authorities are also directed to publish photo and personal informations in regard to corpus in newspapers and Doordarshan and publish further information that any person who finds out the missing person, the same be informed to police in regard to whereabouts of the missing person. If the corpus be traced out then he shall be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of concerned district. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall record statement of the corpus and in accordance with statement pass appropriate order of custody of the corpus.

With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.