RAJIYABEGUM Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a classic case of habeas corpus petition misused by both the mother and brother to find out Imamsab, aged about 34 years, are before this Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of the second petitioner and to direct the respondent-Police to take appropriate action against 6th respondent and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-police to register FIR on the complaint made by the first petitioner and take action in accordance with law as per Annexure-A.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of December 2017, 6th respondent along with 8 to 9 people visited the house of the petitioners during night time and asked about their son Imamsab and told the first petitioner to inform his son about their visit to their residence and also informed that they will kill Imamsab if he does not do their work. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 23.12017, the first petitioner went to meet the relatives at Chandanamatti village, Dharwad Taluk and returned home in the evening at 6.00 p.m. and did not find her son and her husband informed that some people came in the car and took Imamsab. On that day onwards, mobiles of his son were switched off. On 26.12017, the petitioners and their family members tried to find out the whereabouts of his son Imamsab continuously for a period of 3 days and ultimately lodged a complaint to the town Police Station, Dharwad. The police have refused to take a complaint and told the petitioner to search for another few days. Again on 17.02018, at about 7.30 p.m., the sixth respondent Bapugouda Patil along with 8 to 10 persons forcibly entered the house of the petitioners, assaulted the family members and threatened the family members and informed them that they have purchased that house and they are the owners. Using physical force, on the same day, they thrown out the petitioners and her family members along with household articles. The entire episode and the criminal act of the 6th respondent and their followers have been recorded in the mobile. The said footage was shown to the police also. Thereafter, on 23.02018, the second petitioner-brother of the Imamsab received a voice message from Imamsab stating that he was in danger and there is threat to his life. But the police refused to take the complaint and take action against respondent No.6. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the police to take action. Since they have not taken any action for 8 months, they have approached this Court for the relief sought for.

(3.) When the matter came up before this Court on 26.07.2018, learned Government Advocate accepted notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. On 008.2018, the matter was ordered to be posted on 06.08.2018. On 08.08.2018, this Court directed the Police Inspector to register a criminal case against 6th respondent and further observed that in spite of granting sufficient time, status report was not produced and ultimately, the matter was ordered to be posted on 10.08.2018. On 008.2018 status report came to be filed. For want of further detailed report, the matter was posted o 20.08.2018. On 20.08.2018, a detailed report came to be filed. Subsequently, when the matter came up before this Court on 05.09.2018, Sri. C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate on instructions from Sri Laxmikant K. Talawar, Police Inspector, Dharwad Town Police Station, who was present before the Court, submitted that since they are making all sincere efforts to trace Imamsab, aged about 34 years and would positively produce him before the Court within 15 days, the matter was again adjourned to 24.09.2018. On that day, this Court observed that, "Unfortunately, police are not able to trace Imam Hussain and further stated that the investigation will be continued till trace out Imam Hussain and they would make all efforts to trace out Imam Hussain, positively within 15 days", 15 days time was granted by this Court and that is how the matter is posted today at 2.30 p.m. on the memo filed by the Government Advocate in the morning seeking permission to produce Imamsab before the Court as he was traced out.