LAWS(MPH)-2009-3-19

DALI SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On March 16, 2009
DALI SHRIVASTAVA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the corpus of his brother and father namely Umesh kumar Shrivastava and Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava. The present petition has been filed on the allegation that they have been kidnapped by the respondents no. 5 and 6 avinash Shrivastava and Abhilash Shrivastava with the help of some criminal elements. It is contended that though an fir has been lodged, the respondents no. 1 to 4 have not submitted any positive report.

(2.) IT is the further case of the petitioner that her brother was married to Pratibha Shrivastava in the year 1999 who pressurized her brother to shift to Jabalpur on the threat that she would implicate the whole family in a criminal case and eventually did implicate them in an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur against the petitioner, her brother and father.

(3.) AS pleaded, wife of Umesh Kumar Shrivastava filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure for grant of maintenance before the learned family Judge, Jabalpur and the same was decided ex parte against the brother of the petitioner. The sister-in-law of the petitioner threatened on number of occasions to kill her brother and father with the support of respondents no. 5 and 6. Because of the said threats, brother of the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Police Station, Mahila Thana, jabalpur seeking police protection on 11. 12. 2001. It is contended that Umesh Shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava travelled from their Village to Jabalpur on 24. 9. 04 for appearing in a criminal case pending before the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, which was fixed for recording of evidence on 25. 9. 04. They never appeared before the said Court and counsel appearing for the accused contacted the petitioner by telephone on very next day and only then she came to know about the missing of her father and brother. She searched for them in all the Villages where her relatives live but the search was in vain. She lodged a missing report at the Police Station, Badi and in the said report, she had stated about her doubt as regards the role played by the respondents no. 5 and 6 but unfortunately, the police did not mention their names in the FIR. She also submitted a report before respondents no. 2 and 3 but none of the respondents has taken any action.