IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.150 of 2010 ASHA JHA @ ASHA DEVI WIFE OF DAYANAND JHA, RESIDENT OF VILAGE- PIPRAULI, P.O.- MALHIPATTI BAHADURPUR, P.S. ASHOK PAPER MILL, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DARBHANGA 9. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 10. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 11. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (I.O.) LAHERIASARAI P.S., DARBHANGA 12. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (I.O.) ALAMGANJ P.S., PATNA 13. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFFICER, LAHERIASARAI, DARBHANGA ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. PREM KUMAR JHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. GAUTAM BOSE, A.A.G. VIII MS. RATNA DAS, A.C. TO AAG VIII ******************* 3 04.01.2011 The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that her husband was kidnapped by the elder brother of the husband, one close relative and the driver of the vehicle in which her husband was taken out from her house on the plea of some marriage negotiation on 19th May, 2002 and since then her husband became traceless although the other three persons came back to the village. Petitioner suspected that all the three persons in order to grab the family property might have kidnapped and thereafter killed her husband. The petitioner made complaint to all the concerned police officials including the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna as per her letter contained in Annexure-7 copy of which were sent to the concerned police officials, however the same has not 2 been considered since the father-in-law of the petitioner has lodged the F.I.R. vide Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 101 of 2002 with respect to the said occurrence alleging therein that the aforesaid four persons who had gone out might have been kidnapped although alleges that the husband of the petitioner is not having fair antecedent might have kidnapped the other three persons. The case was transferred to the Alamganj police station at Patna and the case was registered vide Alamganj P.S. Case No. 260 of 2003 on 17th October, 2003 since there was some allegation that some part of the occurrence has taken place at the southern end of the Gandhi Setu. The Patna police after investigation did not accept the version of the informant of the said case to the effect that the husband of the petitioner could have kidnapped the other three persons and for want of any such material to substantiate the allegation, final form as contained in Annexure-5 was submitted which was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation of the said case the investigation was not done properly with regard to the disappearance of the husband of the petitioner since out of the four persons who had gone out, three persons have returned back and the husband of the petitioner remained traceless. It is 3 further submitted that during investigation neither the petitioner was examined nor any step was taken to explore the investigation as to what happened to the husband of the petitioner. As such, the prayer of the petitioner is that her complaint made before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure- 7 be taken into consideration and a fresh case be registered by the concerned police station. Mr. Gautam Bose, learned Additional Advocate General No.-VIII appearing for the State submits that the police investigated the matter and after investigation submitted the final form and did not accept the version of the informant that the husband of the petitioner who is not having fair antecedent might be involved in the kidnapping of the three persons. He submits that although the occurrence has been investigated however he is not in position to say as to what investigation was done with regard to the disappearance of the husband of the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner at the relevant time did not take any step with regard to her allegations which is being raised now. The above submission is, however, refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that since the time of disappearance of her husband she is making constant complaints to the police officials, 4 however, the same were not considered. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation of the petitioner needs to be investigated with regard to the disappearance of her husband. Therefore, the respondent no.8 is directed to send the complaint as contained in Annexure-7 to the concerned Police Station expeditiously preferably within a period of one month on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order for registering the case and make proper investigation of the allegations made in the said complaint and proceed according to law. As regards the other relief prayer for in this writ application with regard to the payment of the proceeds of the L.I.C., petitioner will be at liberty to ventilate his grievance before the concerned authority. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)