1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1027 OF 2009 Smt.Faimida w/o Sirajuddin Ansari .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and another .. Respondents Shri P.N.Sonpethkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.D.Kaldate, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 12th January 2010 COURT’S ORDER (Per Shrihari P.Davare, J.) 1. Perused. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.10.2009, the husband of the petitioner by name Mohammad Sirajuddin Ansari had left the house for Namaj at about 1.30 p.m. It is alleged that at that time he left his mobile phone and spectacles in the house. However, it is submitted that he did not return to the house thereafter. The petitioner contends that at about 10.00 p.m. on 12.10.2009, the petitioner lodged the complaint with Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad and same has been registered as Missing Case No.65/2009. 2 3. The petitioner also contends that thereafter she lodged complaint in writing with Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad and she categorically stated therein that there was dispute between her missing husband and one Mohammad Ayub and others and, therefore, she suspected that those persons might have kidnapped her husband. It is further submitted by the petitioner that on 16.10.2009, she lodged the complaint with Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad and stated therein that there was also dispute with one Nisar Khan and it was further alleged that said person might have threatened to kill her husband. Accordingly, on apprehension of abduction of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner has filed the present petition for habeas corpus. 4. The respondents opposed the present petition and filed affidavit-in- reply through Sagarsing s/o Shivlal Rajput, Police Head Constable, Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad and submitted that on receipt of missing report from the petitioner, all the Police Stations under the jurisdiction of Police Commissionerate, Aurangabad were informed by wireless message. So also it is submitted that Assistant Commissioner of Police has given a press note and also the photograph of the missing husband of the petitioner was displayed on the website. It is further stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that the photograph of the missing person was sent to all the Police Stations and news item was also given for publication in daily newspaper. It is also stated that after getting the mobile number of husband of the petitioner, an attempt was made to establish contact with 3 the missing person but he could not be contacted. 5. The said affidavit-in-reply also discloses that the respondents made enquiry and found that the petitioner’s husband had performed three marriages and his first wife resides at Mahim, Mumbai alongwith her seven children. Enquiry was made by the Police personnel with her as well as her children and statement of Afzal Ansari, son of the missing person was recorded and he stated that relations between the missing person and their family were severed since 2001. It is further submitted that the Police personnel also talked to son of Sirajuddin Ansari on his cell phone and he expressed his inability to give any information of whereabouts of missing person and stated that his father performed second marriage with one Nirmalabai who runs a dance bar at Kerala. 6. The said affidavit-in-reply further reveals that the petitioner raised doubts about one Nisarkhan, Hamid Taba and Firozkhan in connection with the missing of husband of the petitioner. Hence, Police personnel recorded the statements of the said persons and they stated that there was dispute between the said persons and the missing person and litigation is pending between them and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the false complaint making allegations against them. The said affidavit- in-reply further discloses that all the possible efforts have been made by the investigating agency and also assured that they would make sincere efforts to trace the husband of the petitioner. 4 7. We have perused the petition as well as contents of the affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondents and heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and it is apparent that on the missing complaint as well as the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of missing husband of the petitioner, the respondents have taken all the possible efforts to trace him out and circulated the photograph of the petitioner’s missing husband to all the Police Stations under the jurisdiction of Commissionerate of Police, Aurangabad as well as given the item in the newspaper and also displayed the photograph of the missing person on the website of the Police. Moreover, the investigating agency also recorded the statements of the persons against whom the petitioner had expressed suspicion and the Investigating Officer has also assured that he would make all the sincere efforts to trace the missing husband of the petitioner and the said statement made by the Investigating Officer is accepted and taken on record, as an undertaking. 8. In the light of the aforesaid position, nothing survives in the present petition and, therefore, same stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1027.09criwp) 5