IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.917 of 2009 SMT. DURGAWATI DEVI WIFE OF SRI KUNJ BIHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF JAI MAHAVIR COLONY, SAIDALPUR, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. …………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA RANGE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA RANGE, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR. 6. CITY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR. 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, PATNA CITY, PATNA, BIHAR. 8. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAHADURPUR POLICE STATION, PATNA, BIHAR. 9. GARACHAND PRASAD, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAHADURPUR POLICE STATION, PATNA, BIHAR. 10. U.S. RAM, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAHADURPUR POLICE STATION, PATNA BIHAR-CUM- INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF THE BAHADURPUR P.S. CASE NO. 19/2009. 11. BINOD SAO SON OF MOTILAL SAO, RESIDENT OF JAI MAHAVIR COLONY, SANDALPUR, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTT.-PATNA. 12. BINOD KUMAR SINGH, SON OF FAKEERA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF JAI MAHAVIR COLONY, SANDALPUR, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTT.-PATNA. 13. MITHILESH KUMAR SON OF LATE SITA RAM, RESIDENT OF JAI MAHAVIR COLONY, SANDALPUR, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTT.- PATNA 14. TARA SHARMA WIFE OF LATE BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF JAI MAHAVIR COLONY, SANDALPUR, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTT.-PATNA . 15. SMT. SUCHITRA SINGH WIFE OF BINOD KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF JAI MAHAVIR COLONY, SANDALPUR, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTT.-PATNA . ----------- Respondents ------------ 4 22.01.2010 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no. 17. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent 2 authorities to trace her son who has been abducted by person(s) inimical to the petitioner and her husband. 2. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned Government counsel submits that Bahadurpur P.S. case no. 19/09, dated 15.2.2009 (Annexure-6), has been started against the petitioner as well as her son wherein allegations have been levelled against them under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. We note the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is trying to create defence for herself and her son by initiating the present proceeding. He further submits that on an appropriate reference by the learned trial court, the police had submitted its report dated 3.7.2009 (Annexure-9) wherein it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “;g fd rhu pkj ekg chr tkus ds ckn Hkh bUgksus vius yM+ds ds xqe gks tkus ;k vigj.k gks tkus dh ckr u rks cgknqjiqj Fkkuk esa ntZ djk;s ugha U;k;ky; esa gh bl ckr dh lwpuk fn, ugha bUgksus vius vkosnu esa ;g n”kkZ, gS fd buds yM+ds dk vigj.k fdl dkj.k ls ;k fdlds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa LFkkuh; yksxksa ls tk¡p iM+rky fd;k x;k LFkkuh; fcuksn lko firk eksrhyky lk- fcuksn dqekj flag firk tequk izlkn ¼3½ feFkys”k dqekj firk lhrkjke ¼4½ rkjk “kekZ ifr Lo- chjsUnz izlkn flag lHkh lkfdu t; egkohj dyksuh Fkkuk cgknqjiqj ls fd;kA bu yksxksa us crk;k fd buds yM+ds jktho dqekj ds ckjs esa feFkys”k lko us crk;k fd vkB&nl fnu igys budk yM+dk ?kj ij vk;k Fkk fQj u tkus dgk¡ pyk x;kA vr% lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd u rks budk yM+dk xqe gqvk gS ugha vigj.k dh dksbZ okjnkr gqbZ gSA blh cgkus ;s mijksDr :i ls dkaM ntZ djok dj vius fojksf/k;ksa dks Qalkuk pkgrs gS vuqyXud &;Fkksijh lefiZr 1- eqy vkosnu ds lkFk xksjkpUnz izlkn 3-7-2009 cgknqjiqj Fkkuk l- v- fu-“ 3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we would not like to proceed further in the matter. The writ 3 petition is accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )