Crl. W. P. No. 395 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 395 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 18, 2011 Mahindro Devi .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sameer Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 7. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Mahindro Devi has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking release of her daughter Devki @ Sushma. It is alleged that the petitioner's daughter Devki @ Sushma, then aged about 18 years, is missing since 20.02.2009, when she had gone to work as maid at the house of one Sharda Devi and did not come back. The petitioner made complaint Annexure P-1 to the police Crl. W. P. No. 395 of 2009 2 alleging that private respondents no.4 to 7 had kidnapped her. However, the police did not take appropriate action and simply recorded Daily Diary Report (DDR). Respondents no.4 to 7 threatened that they would kill the petitioner's daughter if the complaint was not withdrawn. Respondents no.1 to 3 denied having received any complaint Annexure P-1 from the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner rather made statement to the police on 21.02.2009, which was recorded vide DDR Annexure R-1 alleging that the petitioner's daughter had left the house of her own will without informing anyone. It has also been alleged that all out efforts have been made to trace the petitioner's daughter. Subsequent status reports were also presented by respondents no.1 to 3. FIR was also registered against respondents no.4 to 7. However, police has not been able to trace the petitioner's daughter. Respondents no.4 to 7 denied the petitioner's averments. They denied that the alleged detenue is in their custody. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the police has not made sincere efforts to trace the petitioner's daughter. The contention has been controverted by learned State counsel by referring to various status reports depicting sincere efforts made by the police to trace the petitioner's daughter. Crl. W. P. No. 395 of 2009 3 I have carefully considered the matter. Status reports submitted by the police in the court reveal that police has made sincere efforts to trace the petitioner's daughter, but the efforts have proved futile. Even Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer of level of Senior Superintendent of Police from State Crime Branch was also constituted, but even efforts made by SIT proved futile. All the four suspects i.e. respondents no.4 to 7 named by the petitioner were interrogated. They were also subjected to polygraph test. However, no clue about the whereabouts of petitioner's daughter could be found. In spite of repeated query, counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any material to depict even remotely that petitioner's daughter was kidnapped by respondents no.4 to 7. It appears that petitioner had some hunch or suspicion regarding involvement of respondents no.4 to 7 in the disappearance of petitioner's daughter. In complaint Annexure P-1 allegedly made by the petitioner to police on 21.02.2009, the petitioner alleged that she not only had suspicion, but was in fact sure that respondents no.4 to 7 had kidnapped her daughter. However, no basis for naming respondents no.4 to 7 was mentioned in Annexure P-1, which was the first version of the petitioner. Even in the instant writ petition, no circumstances have been alleged against respondents no.4 to 7 except mentioning that respondents no.4 to 7 threatened the petitioner requiring her to withdraw her complaint. Obviously, the alleged threat, if any, came after the petitioner Crl. W. P. No. 395 of 2009 4 made complaint Annexure P-1 to the police naming respondents no.4 to 7 therein, but there is no basis whatsoever for naming respondents no.4 to 7 in the complaint. There is no averment that anybody saw the petitioner's daughter in the company of respondents no.4 to 7 or any of them, at any stage. The matter has already remained pending for more than two years. No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending any more. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of, without prejudice to any other proceeding pending or to be initiated, in accordance with law. July 18, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE