IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.869 OF 2009 Babu Ram S/o Rati Ram ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Dated: November 17, 2009 Sri Manish Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State Coram: HON’BLE B.C. KANDPAL, J. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. HON’BLE B.C. KANDPAL, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the complainant in Case Crime No.256/09 u/s 363/366 of the IPC, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, has prayed to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 for expediting the investigation within the stipulated period. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that an First Information Report was lodged by the petitioner at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar in case crime No.256/09 u/s 363/366 of IPC against the respondent nos.3 to 6, alleging therein that the respondent nos.3 to 6 enticed away the minor daughter of the petitioner who has not been recovered as yet and her whereabouts are also not known till today. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner moved an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. also before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee who directed the police to register the case only thereafter the FIR could be registered at the police station on 25.6.2009. The petitioner and his son have also sent several representations to the SSP, Haridwar regarding the recovery of the victim but all the efforts made by the petitioner and his son are of no avail. The petitioner has also gave a representation to the I.G. (Police) Uttarakhand Garhwal Zone intimating therein that in respect of the report lodged by the petitioner the police has not taken any initiative in the matter as neither the statement of any witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the police as yet nor the police has taken any effort in order to recover the victim. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition before this Court for seeking the relief as stated earlier. The respondent nos.1 & 2 have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the police started the investigation on the basis of the FIR lodged by the petitioner and has also recorded the statement of the petitioner and one Akshay Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 26.6.2009. It is also pleaded that the I.O. also recorded the statements of other witnesses but in the meantime on account of an application moved by the petitioner for transferring the investigation from P.S. Kotwali Roorkee to some other police station, the matter was transferred to P.S. Kotwali Gangnaher for further investigation. The counter affidavit further reveals that the victim has not been recovered as yet inspite of the best efforts made by the police in the matter. Paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit also reveals that one Mohan Lal & Mange Ram have filed affidavit on a Non-Judicial Stamp of Rs.10/- that one Nitu on his motorcycle has taken away the minor girl of the petitioner on 28.5.2009. The contention has also been made in the counter affidavit that the investigation of the case is still in progress. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have clearly stated that they have recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and they are also trying their level best to recover the victim. The respondent nos.1 & 2 have also pleaded in the counter affidavit that the investigation of the case is in progress. It is not a case in which the conduct of the police is to be deprecated. We are of the view that this is a case in which the interference by way of issuing any writ in the nature of mandamus is not required. However, we feel that the petitioner may approach to the SSP, Haridwar in the matter for expediting the investigation and SSP, Haridwar looking into the gravity of the offence as well as the entire situation, shall pass appropriate order to the police station concerned where the investigation of the matter is pending. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.11.2009 Rajeev Dang