LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-81

LALJI AGARIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 16, 2018
Lalji Agariya Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus on account of illegal detention of petitioner's daughter namely Ku. Pramila aged 19 years. As alleged, the corpus was missing about 14 months back from the date of submitting missing information on 23.9.2010 to which a Gum Insan report was registered at Sanha No. 17/2010 in Police Station Morba.

(2.) The incriminating facts available on record are that on 28.4.2009 an FIR was lodged by Ku. Pramila regarding commission of rape against one Kamleshwar wherein a charge sheet was filed making him accused on 30.4.2009 and he was arrested on 16.6.2010. Meaning thereby, after the registration of FIR against Kamleshwar, the girl is missing. The statements of father and mother of the girl were recorded which indicate that thereafter to save Kamleshwar the respondents No. 4 and 5 have made efforts to obtain an affidavit of the girl in his favour alleging that it was Kratlal who was having intimacy with the girl and she wrongly projected the name of Kamleshwar. On perusal of the statements of various persons it is clear that Kamleshwar is a near relative of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, however, looking to the statements of father and mother of the girl it is apparent that after the said affidavit the girl is not traceable though admittedly she visited in the vehicle belongs to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(3.) This Court, looking to all the aforesaid circumstances, was of the opinion that primary allegation of Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code are made out, however, the FIR was registered, but, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that challan has been filed against respondents No. 4 and 5. The net result of all these facts is that neither the offence registered against Kamleshwar to which challan has already been filed could be decided in absence of the corpus nor any concrete evidence could be brought against respondents No.4 and 5.