{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.313 OF 2010 Bhimrao Onkar Sonowane PETITIONER Age-48 years, Occ-Service R/o Takali (Pracha) Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Home Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai 3. Superintendent of Police, S.P. Office, Dhule, Dist-Dhule 4. Police Inspector, Dhule City Police Station, Dist-Dhule 5. Sunil Dayaram Wagh, Age-27 years, Occ-Service 6. Dayaram Ratan Wagh, Age-70 years, Occ-Nil 7. Durgabai Dayaram Wagh, Age-61 years, Occ-Household 8. Vasant Dayaram Wagh, Age-50 years, Occ-Service {2} 9. Surekha Vasant Wagh, Age-45 years, Occ-Household All R/o Shihastha Nagar, Moglai Plot No.43, Phule Nagar, Dhule ....... Mr. Paresh B.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent-State Mr. N.L.Chaudhari, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 9 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 6th October 2010 ORAL JUDGMEN (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Curiously, coupled with this relief, further relief is also prayed for by the petitioner in this petition. The petitioner, vide prayer clause “C” to the petition, has prayed for entrusting the investigation / inquiry of the missing complaint to the CID. 3. According to the petitioner his daughter Nita was married to respondent No.5 sometime in the year 2005. Thereafter {3} the petitioner was informed that his daughter is missing. The petitioner was also informed that on 28.02.2010 respondent No.5 had submitted a report with the concerned police station intimating that his wife, Nita was missing. On 01.03.2010, the petitioner submitted a representation to the police, expressing his suspicion in respect of the disappearance of his daughter Nita. Since no action was taken on his representation, the petitioner has filed this petition in this Court. On notice being issued, the respondent State has filed its affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply it is contended that on 30.03.2010 an offence u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against respondent No.5 and his other relatives. The petitioner also contends that on 05.04.2010, he had addressed a communication to the respondent State seeking entrustment of the investigation to the CID. The petitioner further contends that the said application has not been decided as yet. 4. In respect of the issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus, we find, upon perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent State, that the police officers have taken all steps, humanly possible, for tracing the whereabouts of Nita. Despite their best efforts, the whereabouts of Nita have not been traced, so far. We, therefore, find that no writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued at this stage to respondents No.3 and 4 or to the husband of Nita i.e. respondent No.5, who contends that Nita had disappeared from his house and he had accordingly lodged a {4} complaint. While dismissing the petition in respect of the prayer clause “B” to the petition, we direct the police authorities to continue with their search for tracing the whereabouts of Nita with the same zeal and enthusiasm which has been displayed by them so far. In respect of the relief of entrusting the investigation / inquiry regarding missing report, since the petitioner has submitted an application on 05.04.2010 seeking entrustment of the investigation to the CID, we allow this petition to the limited extent of directing the respondents to decide the said application within two months from today. Since the application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondents, we decline from expressing any opinion as to whether this is a fit case for entrusting the investigation / inquiry to the CID. 5. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed, as indicated above with no order as to costs. Rule is accordingly made absolute. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp313-10