1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 34 OF 2009 Govind s/o Ambadas Pakhre ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate with Mr Amol S. Gandhi for the petitioner; Mr S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 27th January, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to secure the presence of the son of the petitioner and release him from the illegal detention of one Shri Atmaram Punjaram Wagh, i.e. respondent no.4. It appears that the son of the petitioner by name Kailash Govind Pakhre was missing since 30.11.2008. The son of the petitioner had left the house for proceeding towards his agricultural land. The son of the 2 petitioner thereafter was not seen by the petitioner. The petitioner searched and tried to solicit information from the villagers about the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner. Ultimately it transpired that one Atmaram i.e. respondent no.4 was seen in the company of the son of the petitioner and it was alleged that the said Atmaram had taken the son of the petitioner along with him. It appears that the petitioner learnt that there was some quarrel between the son of the petitioner and respondent no.4 and in order to wreak vengeance, Atmaram and his relatives had abducted the son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had tried to contact his son on the mobile phone but could not contact him and, therefore, filed a complaint against Atmaram and others at police station, Jalna (Rural). On the basis of the said complaint an offence punishable under section 363 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide Crime No.290 of 2008. According to the petitioner, thereafter he had been threatened by others to withdraw the complaint against Atmaram, otherwise they would kill the petitioner as well as the other family members. The petitioner accordingly lodged the complaint in the police station, Jalna against the said named persons and an offence under section 504, 506 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide N.C.R. No.701 of 2008 came to be registered. According to the petitioner, though his son had been detained illegally by the fourth respondent, the police has not taken any steps for tracing the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner. 3 2. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents no.1 to 3 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that on 2.12.2008 the petitioner had approached the police station and had lodged a report about the missing of his son Kailash. In the said report it was stated that since 30.11.2008 his son was missing. Accordingly, the report was registered as Missing Report No.24 of 2008 at the police station and inquiry in respect of the said report came to be allotted to A.S.I. Shri Trinetre. A.S.I. Trinetre immediately dispatched message through wireless to all the police stations and he also sent the photograph of Kailash. The A.S.I. further recorded the statements of the relatives and neighbours of the missing boy Kailash. The statement of one Shri Gajanan was to the effect that he had seen Kailash proceeding towards his field along with respondent no.4 Atmaram. It is further stated that one P.S.I. Shaikh and 20 other police personnel tried to search the whereabouts of Kailash near village Gondegaon and they have inspected the wells, tanks, valleys and hills but had not found Kailash. It is also stated that on 4.12.2008 P.S.I. Navale with his staff along with the petitioner tried to search for Kailash as per the tower location of mobile phone of Kailash and one Police Head Constable Nagargoje also tried to search Kailash by visiting various places in the M.I.D.C. The affidavit in reply further discloses that A.S.I. Shri Trinetre and Police Head Constable Pohar along with the petitioner visited village Umraj, Taluka and District Satara on 10.12.2008 for searching Kailash. It is further stated that an offence was registered 4 against the fourth respondent by Police Head Constable Pohar and he arrested respondent no.4 on 12.12.2008 and had produced him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna and had obtained police custody remand. It is further stated that whereabouts of Kailash were sought to be elicited during the custodial interrogation of Atmaram but the police officers were not successful. Several statements of the witnesses have been recorded but no trace of Kailash could be found. The affidavit in reply further discloses that the authorities had distributed various pamphlets during the weekly bazaar, etc. soliciting information about the whereabouts of Kailash. Wireless message has been circulated to all the Districts int he State of Maharashtra giving details of the missing boy. It is further stated that photograph with description of Kailash has been sent to Doordarshan and local T.V. channels on 3.1.2009 and 4.1.2009 and the photograph with details came to be displayed on 8.1.2009 and 9.1.2009. It is stated that despite such wide publicity , no information is received about the whereabouts of Kailash. It is further stated that permission came to be obtained from the Judicial Magistrate First Class for conducting the narco analysis test as well as brain mapping test of Atmaram. It is further stated by the learned A.P.P. that the revision filed by the accused Atmaram has been dismissed by the revisional Court. The affidavit in reply concludes by stating that all steps as are possible have been taken for tracing the whereabouts of Kailash. 5 3. Mr P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the police have not investigated the offence properly and despite the petitioner giving clues to the whereabouts of his son, the police have not taken any steps. It is unfortunate that the son of the petitioner is missing since 30.11.2008. It is equally true that despite the best efforts taken by the police officers the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner have not been traced, which is unfortunate case, for which the police cannot be held at neck nor can any laxity be found in the performance of the police officers in tracing the whereabouts of the missing son of the petitioner. The police have followed all the clues given by the petitioner including the arrest of respondent no.4 and visiting various places in the company of the petitioner for tracing the whereabouts of his son. Despite all these efforts, it is unfortunate that the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner have not been traced. In any event, this is a habeas corpus petition and we cannot look into the steps taken during the investigation of the crime. From the affidavit in reply we find that the police have taken all steps for tracing the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping this petition pending. Atmaram has been arrested and has been interrogated but during his custodial interrogation, the whereabouts of the son of the petitioner have not surfaced. The petitioner alleges that Atmaram had abducted his son and has detained his son illegally against the will of his son. Despite interrogation the whereabouts are not known. In such circumstances, 6 therefore, according to us there is no merit in the petition and the petition, therefore, deserves to be summarily dismissed. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. It is needless to state that since we have not dealt with the question of investigation or the manner of investigation in respect of the said crime, any proceedings which the petitioner may choose to institute in respect of that investigation as to the crime are kept open. Petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp34.09