RANVEER SINGH MEEL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is said to be the brother of the detenu with the averment that respondent No. 4 has kidnapped his sister on 28.03.2014. In respect of the said incident, a written report has been registered on 28.03.2014 itself for the offence under Section 366 IPC. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that no progress is being made in the investigation. Therefore, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to produce the detenu Rajni before

(2.) IN the instant case, the detenu is said to have been kidnapped on 28.03.2014. The report in respect of incident has been registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, Sikar on the same day i.e. 28.03.2014. But the petitioner, without waiting for the investigation to be proceeded with, has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By lodging the first information report, the petitioner has availed the alternative and efficacious remedy under the relevant law and the investigation in the matter is still pending. In these circumstances, there is no just reason for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the alternative remedy has already been availed by the petitioner. However, if the concerning authorities do not take prompt steps in respect of investigation then the petitioner shall be free to approach the concerning Magistrate with the request that the investigation be monitored and supervised by him by calling periodical progress report from the police. Such power has been vested with the concerning Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as annunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., : (2008) 2 SCC 409. The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under: