CHANDER KALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Chander Kala wife of Devi Dass, resident of Basu Gate Matak Majri in front of School No. 1 and House No. B-1075, Karnal lodged F.I.R. No. 424 dated 8.7.1995 at Police Station City Karnal alleging that her daughter named Draupdi was abducted by Shivani, Dr. Rana and Surajmal Constable. The occurrence, according to the F.I.R., took place on 4.7.1995 at 1.00 p.m. when her friend Shivani called her from the house of the petitioner and took her. She came back at about 3.30 p.m. and went to her house at 5.30 p.m. Thereafter, the daughter of the petitioner did not return home. The petitioner alleged that her daughter was working in the Karnal Congress Party Office and also in the personal office of the Deputy Minister Excise and Taxation Jai Parkash Gupta at Karnal. She further mentioned that the enquiries revealed that constable Surajmal of Police Post Pucca Pul, Madhuban was responsible for the abduction of Draupdi. The petitioner made several representations regarding the action to be taken by the local police to recover her daughter Draupdi. She also made an application before the D.I.G. Rohtak Range on 19.7.1995 and ultimately approached by means of an application the Chief Minister Haryana. Since the Police did not take any action in the matter she filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the investigations of the aforesaid case may be ordered to be handed over to the C.B.I. so that her daughter may be traced out or at least whereabouts of her daughter may be made known. She has expressed the apprehension that due to the lapse of time all the clues leading to the persons involved in the abduction of Draupdi might be lost and Draupdi night be murdered or kept in illegal confinement and custody of her abductors.

(2.) NOTICES of the petition were issued to the respondent-State of Haryana through Secretary, Home, D.I.G. Rohtak Range, Rohtak, Director General of Police, Haryana, respondent No. 1 to 3 only. Notice was not issued to respondent No. 4 C.B.I.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that despite all these steps which are said to have been taken by the local police, the local police was unable to trace out Draupdi and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the local police is unable to trace Draupdi either alive or dead or find out any clue regarding her. In these circumstances, it was contended that it would be appropriate that the matter regarding the abduction of Draupdi, daughter of the petitioner be entrusted to the C.B.I. for investigation so that the C.B.I. may act independently and since the local police due to some reason or the other is unable to trace out Draupdi, her life may not be imperiled.