Crl. W. P. No. 951 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 951 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 20, 2011 Ved Parkash .... Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for C. B. I. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondents no. 2 to 5. Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondents no. 6 and 7. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 8. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 725 of 2011 : Application is allowed and reply/objection to the enquiry report filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is taken on record, Crl. W. P. No. 951 of 2009 (O&M) 2 subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : This is Habeas Corpus writ petition filed by Ved Parkash under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's daughter Rekha Rani was married with Kapil Kumar – respondent no.6, who is son of Bimla Rani – respondent no.7. The marriage took place on 22.02.2008 at Rajpura, where both parties reside. Manoj Kumar alias Lucky – respondent no.8 is son of petitioner's sister Kalawanti, also residing at Rajpura. Petitioner's daughter Rekha Rani disappeared on 17.04.2008. Her date of birth is 06.05.1983. She was aged about 25 years at the time of her disappearance. The petitioner levelled usual allegations of demand of dowry and harassment of the petitioner's daughter by respondents no.6 and 7. The petitioner suspected their hand in disappearance of his daughter. Petitioner also expressed suspicion against his own nephew respondent no.8, who used to have telephonic talk with petitioner's daughter. Stand of official respondents no.2 to 5 is that in spite of efforts, petitioner's daughter could not be traced. Respondents no.6 and 7 pleaded that Rekha Rani herself left the matrimonial home on 17.04.2008. Allegations of demand of dowry and harassment were denied. Joint application dated 03.02.2009 was also made by the petitioner and respondent no.6 to the police. Crl. W. P. No. 951 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Respondent no.8 has denied his involvement in the disappearance of petitioner's daughter. Vide order dated 02.12.2010, this Court directed CBI to conduct preliminary inquiry into the matter and to submit report. Pursuant thereto, CBI submitted inquiry report in sealed cover on the preceding date of hearing. The sealed cover has been opened up today in open Court and the inquiry report has been taken out. However, copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the counsel for the petitioner on the preceding date of hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that according to CBI inquiry, respondent no.8 had telephonic talk with Rekha Rani on 15.04.2008 and also sent her four messages. Respondent no.8 also sent messages to Rekha Rani on 12.04.2008. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of CBI having suspicion on Manoj Kumar – respondent no.8 and also on Sandeep Arora alias Sunny, the petitioner's daughter has not yet been traced. The contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Conclusion of the CBI in its inquiry report is reproduced hereunder :- “In view of the above facts and Crl. W. P. No. 951 of 2009 (O&M) 4 circumstances and facts enumerated during enquiry, revealed that Rekha Rani had left her matrimonial house willingly. No evidence has come forth during enquiry to conclude that missing Rekha Rani was tortured or ill-treated by her husband Kapil Kumar and mother-in-law Smt. Bimla Rani for the demand of dowry at any occasion. Rekha Rani was living happily in her matrimonial home. Nothing unusual was noticed about the conduct of husband and in laws of the missing Rekha Rani to suspect any foul play on their part. Therefore, no action is recommended against Sh.Kapil Kumar, husband and Smt. Bimla Rani, mother-in-law of missing Rekha Rani.” It is manifest from the aforesaid conclusion that the CBI has no suspicion on respondent no.8 or Sandeep Arora in the disappearance of petitioner's daughter. On the contrary, it has come in the inquiry that petitioner's daughter had intimacy with respondent no.8 prior as well as subsequent to her marriage and perhaps, also had some affair with Sandeep Arora prior to her marriage. However, their involvement in disappearance of petitioner's daughter has not been suspected by the CBI in its inquiry. On the other hand, prima facie, it appears that petitioner's daughter, who was aged about 25 years, voluntarily went away somewhere. Crl. W. P. No. 951 of 2009 (O&M) 5 All efforts by State police including CIA Staff, Special Investigation Team and Crime Branch failed to trace the petitioner's daughter and even CBI has failed to trace the petitioner's daughter. It is, however, significant to notice that in the writ petition, the petitioner levelled allegations against respondents no.6 and 7 regarding dowry demand and harassment of petitioner's daughter by them. However, during CBI inquiry, petitioner as well as his wife stated that there was no demand of dowry or harassment of petitioner's daughter by respondents no.6 and 7. It was also stated that petitioner's daughter was living happily with her husband respondent no.6. Thus, false averments were made by the petitioner in the writ petition to malign respondents no.6 and 7. This conduct of the petitioner has to be deprecated. As noticed herein above, for more than three years, all efforts have been made to trace the petitioner's daughter, but all the efforts have proved futile. Petitioner's daughter was aged 25 years and prima facie, she voluntarily went away from her matrimonial home. Nothing more can be done in the case. It would be useless to keep the case pending any more. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. July 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE