JAGATDHARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a habeas corpus petition filed by Jagatdhari for missing of his son -in -law Motiram S/o Shri Ramlal. It is alleged that on 8.1.1994 the respondents No.2 and 3 along -with two constables and two businessmen came to village of the petitioner and called his son -in -law Motiram and took him in a jeep to Lakhanpur Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner's son Puneshwar went to Police Station Lakhanpur to meet Motiram and to give him food and clothes, but he did not see Motiram there. The respondent No.4, Asstt. Sub -Inspector, informed him that Motiram has been taken to Ambikapur for a round and then on 10.1.1994 Puneshwar, son of the petitioner, again went to Lakhanpur Police Station but the respondent No.4. D.K. Sharma told him that Motiram had been released on 9.1.1994. Motiram did not reach home nor he was seen anywhere by the petitioner or his relatives. Then again on 11.1.1994, the petitioner son Puneshwar went to Police Station Lakhanpur and met Shri D.K. Sharma, Assitt. Sub -Inspector, who informed him that Motiram left by Ravindra Bus Service on Sunday itself. It is alleged that on 12.1.1994 Smt. Anuradha Shankar Sinha, Shri Upadhyaya, Inspector and two Constable of Police came to the house of the petitioner and directed the petitioner, his brother Palakdhari. his son Puneshwar, daughter Munnibai w/o Motiram to make a report in the Police Station Lakhanpur that Motiram was missing. It is also alleged that the petitioner and members of the family told the police party that they would not lodge a report of missing as they had taken Motiram with them. It is alleged that Smt. Anuradha Shankar Sinha asked the petitioner's daughter Munnibai w/o Motiram that she would direct the police personnel to make payment to her and had pressed her to make a report about missing of her husband Motiram. It is alleged that an application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambikapur. The said bail application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambikapur on the ground that Motiram was taken for interrogation and thereafter he had been released. Since Motiram did not return home, the petitioner protested to S.P. Sarguja and to various authorities but without any result. Thereafter, the matter was also published in the news paper, but without any avail, and as such, the present writ of habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) A reply was filed by the respondents and they admitted that Motiram was called at the police Station for investigation, but he was not arrested and no papers were prepared. Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, filed an affidavit that he made enquiry from the Police Personnel viz. Shri N.P. Upadhyaya, S.I., Shri D.K. Sharma, A.S.I. and Shri Meghnalh, Constable, who were posted at Police Station Lakhanpur. He admitted that there was no entry relating to Motiram in Rojllamcha of 8.1.1994 and 9.1.1994. He admitted that Motiram was called for questioning on 8.1.1994 and he was allowed to go on 9.1.1994. He also submitted that no further information regarding whereabouts of Motiram is available. However, application of missing person case is still pending and is under investigation. It is pointed out in the reply that Motiram had sent a Money order of Rs. 300/ - from Varanasi Nai Bazar to his wife Smt. Munnibai. It is also pointed out in the reply that it is learnt that Motiram who was working as Driver, had sent Rs. 400/ - to his father -in -law Jagatdhari and the same was received by the petitioner on 15.3.1994. Thereafter, when the matter came up before this Court, the Court, was not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police and the return filed by the respondents. On several occasions, the Court directed the Police to make an extensive search and produce Motiram, but the Police failed to produce Motiram in person. Then on 23.7.1996 this Court directed the District Judge, Ambikapur to make enquiry in the matter and send a report. The District Judges, Ambikapur, sent a detailed report and in that report, we found that Motiram has not been found alive. Thereafter, on receipt of the report of the District Judge, it was felt that it is the responsibility of the Police to account for a person who was called by them and since then he has not been found alive. Then it was directed that the matter may be inquired into by the C.I.D. not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Motiram was called by the Police and he has not been heard alive; therefore, either the police should produce Motiram or his family be adequately compensated for absence of Motiram. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 312 and 1949), and in that case, there was a complaint of abduction of seven persons by senior police officers by using official machinery and on enquiry by D.I.G. (Crimes), it was found that these seven persons were abducted by the Police Officials and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the C.B.I. enquiry. After considering the report of C.B.1. enquiry, it was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the State of Punjab to pay to the legal representatives of each of the said seven persons an amount of Rs. 1,50 Lakhs.