OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 32 of the Constitution had come to this court during the long vacation. The first order was made on 14/05/1991 when the learned Vacation Judge (one of us) was satisfied that the mother must get back her daughter. During the vacation some more orders were made and it was only on 17/07/1991, on being satisfied that the orders of this court were not being duly complied with, we required the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to personally look into the matter. Notwithstanding that direction and the sense of urgency indicated in the language of the order, the Commissioner of Police, as it transpires from the subsequent affidavits and documents, was not made aware of the direction until 5/08/1991. This court took serious view of the direction of this court dated 17/07/1991 not being brought to the notice of the Commissioner and the Commissioner not complying with the direction. Subsequently, notice was issued to all the police officers who dealt with the matter, namely, receiving the direction of this court and not bringing it to the notice of the Commissioner. Certain affidavits have been filed by those officers pleading alibi of liability.

(2.) At one stage when the learned Attorney-General appeared for the respondents, we thought it appropriate that the responsibility of looking into the matter in depth should be left to him and the police officers should be adequately pulled up and made alive about their responsibility to comply with the orders of this court.

(3.) A news item got published in the local press at Agra that a dead body of a lady was discovered from a well. That gave rise to a representation being made by the counsel for the petitioner that the dead body was of the girl in question. Our doubts got somewhat confirmed when the petitioner's wife appeared in court identified the photograph to be the dead body of her daughter.