MADHUKAR KISHANRAO CHOUDHARI Vs. SURYAKANT JOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the interim order was passed by this Court on 7th of March 1986, the girl Rajashree was produced before us with a male child aged about one month on 17th of March 1986 by Respondent No. 2 Babasaheb Balasaheb Jamge. Other Respondents including the police officers made a statement at Rajshree was not traceable and, therefore, they were unable to produce her. As a temporary arrangement, during the pendency of this writ petition, Rajashree and her one month old son were directed to be kept in the Bapnu Ghar and it was also directed that respondent No. 2 Jamge will bear the expenses for her stay in the said institution. The parents of the girl i.e. Dr. Madhukar Choudhari and Mrs. Malti Choudhari alone were permitted to see the girl in the said Bapnu Ghar. Thereafter the respondents filed detailed affidavits in the matter denying the allegations made against them.

(2.) The main grievance made in the petition by the petitioner who is the father of the girl was that his daughter was kidnapped from Delhi by respondent No. 2 Babasaheb, Balasaheb Jamge and others on 2nd of April, 1984. Thereafter she was staying with Respondent No. 2 Jamge. Though specific directions were given by the police officers and Judicial Magistrate at Delhi for production of the girl, respondent police officers failed to discharge their duties. He had written several letters to the authorities concerned but till 17th March, 1986 i.e. the day on which the girl was produced in this Court, the police authorities did not care to trace out the girl or to hand over her custody to the petitioner. It was also urged that when, the girl was kidnapped from Delhi on 2nd April 1984, she was minor and was kidnapped from the lawful custody. Thereafter she was taken to various places in Maharashtra and was ultimately concealed and confined by respondent No. 2 Jamge in his wrongful custody. In view of the serious allegations made in the petition, the earlier Bench of this Court directed the production of the girl on 17th of March 1986. As already observed ultimately the girl came to be produced by respondent No. 2 Jamge from his custody.

(3.) In the writ petition it is contended by the petitioner that he is a registered medical practitioner and prior to 16th February 1982 was residing at Gangakhed alongwith his wife and 5 minor daughters and 2 minor sons. Rajashree alias Manisha is die third daughter who was born on 23rd of March 1968. Then it is averred that when Rajashree was studying in the school she participated in the Orchestra run by respondent No. 2 Jamge. In para 4 of the petition it is alleged that on 16th February 1982 Rajashree did not return home from the school and on enquiry it was found that she was taken away by respondent no. 2 on his motor cycle. A complaint in that behalf was also lodged at the police station. Ultimately the petitioner with his friend went to the village Kaudgaon where he found respondent No. 2 and Rajashree. It is the case of the petitioner that there respondent No. 2Ts father made a proposal that the petitioner should permit the respondent No. 2 to keep Rajashree as his mistress and that he will gift to her a piece of land as consideration. Obviously the petitioner did not agree to this and ultimately brought her back to his place. Thereafter, initially she was taken to Hyderabad. Bombay and ultimately the petitioner kept Rajashree at Delhi with his brother, wherefrom, it is alleged that she was kidnapped on 2nd of April 1984. A reference is also made to the various proceedings pending in the court of law. However, in our view it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the matters pending in various courts of law nor we want to comment upon it one way or the other. It is the case of the petitioner that though initially an offence was registered at Delhi and as per the directions given by the Delhi Police the, police machinery in Maharashtra was expected to trace out the girl, they failed to do so, and, therefore, ultimately the case at Delhi came to be dropped. The offence of kidnapping being a continuing one, it also took place within the jurisdiction of Maharashtra, and inspite of his best efforts and several complaints the police machinery did not register any offence against respondent No. 2 and others, though enough material was disclosed in the complaint. A farce of investigation was carried out and every time it .was reported that the girl is not traceable. Such a report was submitted without making serious efforts either to investigate the offence or to trace out the girl. On 21st April, 1984 the Delhi police visited Gangakhed and requested the Maharashtra Police to arrest respondent No. 2 but they did not do so till 3rd June, 1984 when respondent No. 2 obtained anticipatory bail from Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Delhi police also requested the local police and Regional Transport Authority Parbhani to seize the vehicle MGM 434 in which the girl was kidnapped from Delhi but that was also not done. Though specific allegations of kidnapping were made against respondent No. 2 who was posing that Rajashree is his wife and was in his keeping, respondent No. 2 was neither interrogated, nor arrested.