RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed making allegations that petitioners No. 1 to 5 are under illegal detention of respondent No. 4. It has been alleged that petitioners were initially working in a brick kiln but at the gun point they are being forced to work with respondent No. 2 and their lives were in danger. Annexure-1 annexed with the application is an application which makes elaborate allegations as to how the persons detaining the petitioners are having arms and how with all the criminal intentions they have disallowed the aforesaid petitioners to move out and are being guarded constantly. Extreme torture being inflicted to the detained persons has been apprehended. It has also been alleged that as the police has not registered the FIR. therefore, the petitioners had to file the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned AGA placing reliance on certain cases submitted in rebuttal that the allegations submitted by the counsel and the facts as revealed from the record, constitute commission of criminal offences and it is the primary duty of the police to register the FIR in the matter. If the petitioners have any grievance from the refusal of the police to register the FIR, they have a statutory remedy available and can always move the Court of Magistrate under 156(3) of Cr.P.C. They can also bring a proper complaint against the alleged accused persons. The contention is that the refusal to register the FIR does not automatically makes the Habeas Corpus writ petition maintainable. There are many offences wherein a person is kidnapped or abducted or illegally detained and is kept under wrongful confinement but that does not go to mean that in all such cases the filing of a habeas corpus writ petition would become justified or maintainable. The scope and ambit of habeas corpus petition has its own limitations as constraints.

(3.) It may be apt to give reference to two decisions given by this Court. In the case of Madhav Das Agrawal and another v. State of U.P. and others,2007 3 JIC 170, a habeas corpus petition was filed seeking the production of the corpus and then the release of the same on the basis of the allegations that the corpus was under illegal detention. That was case in which FIR had already been lodged. After considering the facts of the case the Court had to occasion to observe as follows: