1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3379/2009 (Roop Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 24th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.S.Purohit, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: By filing this writ petition for writ, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.1 to 4 be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to petitioner for failure on the part of respondents No.1 & 2 to tress-out petitioner's son, for illegal detention of Shrawan Puri by respondents No.3 & 4 for long period, causing physical assorts to him and taking begaar from him unconstitutional; b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents No. 1 & 2 be directed to get the statement of Shrawan Puri recorded before the Magistrate First Class. c) By an appropriate, writ order or direction the respondents No. 1 & 2 to be directed to register the criminal case against respondents No. 3 & 4 for illegal detention of Shrawan Puri and taking begaar from him. The respondents No.1 & 2 be further directed to prosecute respondents No.3 & 4 as per law for their criminal Act. d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the circumstances of the case may warrant be also passed in favour of the petitioner and, petitioner may be awarded the costs of this writ petition.” 2 The reliefs aforesaid have been claimed by the petitioner while stating the facts that his son Shrawan Puri, an illiterate boy in 20 years of age and engaged in agriculture and cattle grazing, was lured by the respondents Nos.3 & 4, working as carpenters, to work with them at Banglore; that the said respondents also approached the petitioner and after persuading, took his son along in the month of September, 2005; that the petitioner was never informed of the whereabouts and well-being of his son; that upon trying to make contact, the petitioner was always misled by the respondents Nos. 3 & 4; that Shrawan Puri was not even permitted to talk to the petitioner; and that in the given circumstances, suspecting the bona fides of the respondents Nos.3 & 4, the petitioner submitted a written complaint on 08.03.2006 at the Police Station, Phalodi. The petitioner has averred that despite written information, the police did not take legal action and no sincere efforts were made to investigate the matter and to recover the petitioner's son from the illegal custody of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4; and even the representations made to the Administration and the Authorities did not yield any result. The petitioner has pointed out that he filed a Habeas Corpus Petition bearing number 6845/2006 wherein the 3 respondents filed the reply and submitted the reports to the Court that investigation was going on; and the said petition was ultimately dismissed on 14.01.2008. Though a copy of the order dated 14.01.2008 has not been filed but the petitioner has reproduced the operative portion of the order passed in the said petition in para No.7 of the writ petition and the same is noticed for ready reference as under:- “The FIR having being registered the Police Authorities are directed in investigate the same in right perspective with utmost earnestness. It should not be reflected from the investigation that they are negligent. With these observation the Habeas corpus petition is dismissed.” The petitioner has averred that he spent a huge amount to get his son released from the illegal custody of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4; that many a times himself or his relatives accompanied the police to Banglore; and that in the process and in the efforts to locate his son, the petitioner was compelled to sell the ornaments and his agriculture land. It has further been averred that on 03.04.2009, the petitioner's son came to the village on his own and narrated about the mis-happenings with him and his having suffered cruel and unwarranted behaviour at the hands of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 who even threatened to kill him and took begar without giving him proper food and clothings; and it 4 was with the help of a gentleman that he could arrive safely. The petitioner has alleged that after arrival of his son, he had requested the Investigating Officer to record the statements of Shrawan Puri and to take action as per law but no action has been taken and, according to the petitioner the local police seems to be hand-in-gloves with the respondents Nos.3 &4. It is also alleged that the petitioner has been threatened with evil consequences for making any utterances against the respondents 3 & 4. On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has stated the grounds that his son was illegally detained but the matter has not been properly investigated; that the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 have concocted the story about wishes of the petitioner's son but the police has not thoroughly investigated on the said story; and that the statements of Shrawan Puri have not been recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has alleged that upon knowledge of commission of offence, an FIR ought to have been registered but no criminal case has yet been registered against the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 nor any action is being taken against them. The petitioner has also asserted that for his son having remained in unlawful detention and having been subjected to bagar, himself and his son are entitled to get compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. 5 Without any comments on the correctness or otherwise of the averments as taken in the writ petition, even if whatever averred by the petitioner is taken on its face value, it is but apparent that the grievance of the petitioner is against want of proper investigation and registration of the case; and, for the suggestions as made, there appears no reason to consider issuance of any writ, order or direction in the present case. It is not borne out as to why the petitioner has not taken resort to the appropriate regular remedies including those under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grievance as suggested. Prima facie, even the suggestions as made in the writ petition remain cryptic and uncertain; and do not inspire confidence when it is noticed that the Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed by this Court while observing that FIR had been registered and while directing the police authorities to investigate the matter with utmost earnestness. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lallan Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. : 2006 AIR SCW 5172. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that cognizable offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 452, 323 and 395 IPC were disclosed in the complaint that was endorsed to the SHO of the concerned Police Station for registering the FIR but the concerned SHO registered the case 6 only under Sections 452, 380, 323/34 IPC but Section 395 IPC was excluded from the purview of FIR; and resultantly, no investigation was carried out in that regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it had been a miscarriage of justice for SHO not registering the FIR on the basis of the offence disclosed in the complaint. It was also observed that the Trial Magistrate failed to notice the contents of the complaint and accepted mechanically the charges framed under Sections 452/323/34 IPC and the Sessions Judge also failed to take notice of miscarriage of justice. In the given circumstances, the High Court was found to have justly corrected the errors committed by the two courts below. The said decision does not make out a case for issuance of any writ, order or direction at the instance of the petitioner. As noticed above, the petitioner seems not to have taken resort to the regular remedies including those under the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far the claim for compensation is concerned, the same obviously depends on the enquiry into the allegations and the related facts. The writ jurisdiction of this Court could hardly be exercised for the purpose of enquiry into the allegations as made by the petitioner. For the averments as taken and the grounds as suggested, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is 7 made out. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni