LATORI CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the father of Tejabai, a minor, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ in the nature of 'habeas corpus' for production of the said Tejabai in Court and for grant of exemplary compensation for her detention by the respondent No. 5, Moolchand, in an illegal manner.

(2.) The facts which are necessitous to be exposited for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner is an illiterate villager of Village, Khakariya, Tehsil, Deori in the District of Sagar and belongs to Scheduled Caste. The respondent No. 6, Nirmal Panda, who is engaged in curing people by alternative method of treatment by reading 'Mantras' treated Tejabai who was suffering from headache and on the date of such visit he impressed upon the wife of the petitioner that Tejabai should marry Moolchand, son of Hariram Chambar otherwise the family will pave on the path of ruination but the petitioner and his wife did not accede to such a suggestion, as a consequence of which on 31-7-2006 in the midnight the daughter of the petitioner was abducted by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with the help of other co- accused persons. As set forth the petitioner lodged a FIR at the Police Station, Maharajpur, Tehsil, Deori in quite promptitude and orally informed the police that the respondent No. 5, Moolchand and respondent No. 6, Nirmal Panda had colluded and abducted his minor daughter aged about 16 years and thereafter a written complaint was given in that regard. Despite receipt of the complaint by the petitioner no action was taken against the private respondents which compelled the petitioner to submit a written complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sagar, Superintendent of Police, Sagar and the Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Gopalganj, Sagar on 6-8-2006. Despite such action being taken by the petitioner, sphinx like silence was maintained by the authorities which resulted in the agonised suffering of the petitioner.

(3.) It is contended in the writ petition that though the time rolled, no action was taken and the said inaction emboldened the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to threaten the petitioner that he would visit with dire consequences. Under these circumstances the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court for the reliefs that have been mentioned hereinabove. It is urged in the petition that the respondents are influential persons having a political base and, therefore, the authorities have become oblivious of the allegations made against them and have not turned a Nelson's eye to the complaint made by the petitioner.