IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 Date of decision : 8.12.2009 Raj Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana. **** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to investigate the complaint dated 22.11.2009 (Annexure P1) filed by the petitioner against respondents No.4 to 6 and their allies for kidnapping the minor daughter of the petitioner aged above 11 years. A further prayer has been made for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to intimate about the outcome of their investigation. It is still further prayed that a direction be issued to respondents No.1 to 3 to take the custody of the daughter of the petitioner from respondents No.4 to 6 and hand her over to the petitioner. The minor daughter of the petitioner namely Manju aged about 11 years was working at house No.401, Sector 20, GHS No.1, Panchkula as a helper for petty household jobs. On 16.11.2009, Rinku son of Narain (respondent No.4) along with his friend namely Ramu kidnapped Manju (minor daughter of the petitioner) from Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [2] Sector 20 market at Panchkula. Narain (respondent No.5), Mukesh (respondent No.6) and mother of Rinku (respondent No.4), it is alleged, connived with Rinku (respondent No.4) to hide the girl. When the petitioner failed to trace out his minor daughter, he enquired from the people in locality and came to know about kidnapping of his daughter. Accordingly, he made a complaint dated 22.11.2009 (Annexure P1) to SHO, Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula (respondent No.3) for registration of FIR against respondents No.4 to 6 and mother of respondent No.4 and his friend Ramu who had connived together in the said criminal act. However, no action, it is alleged, has been taken on the complaint (Annexure P1) by the SHO, Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula (respondent No.3). A copy of the petition was given to the learned counsel for the State on 30.11.2009 so as to enable him to seek instructions in the matter. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Chandi Ram, Police Station Sector-20, Panchkula has submitted that the minor daughter of the petitioner namely Manju has been traced out from Ludhiana and she was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate at Panchkula on 7.12.2009. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula. A copy of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula and the copy of the statement of Manju, daughter of the petitioner recorded before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class have been submitted in Court and copy given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In terms of the statement of Manju, daughter of the petitioner recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [3] her age has been recorded as 18 years and it is stated that she had known to Rinku (respondent No.4) and about three weeks earlier on Sunday, she had gone out with him. They had met at Peer Muchala, Sector-20, Panchkula. There, her brother-in-law (Jija) with whom she was staying, had seen them and caught them. Thereafter, she was brought home and was beaten. Then on the following day, she went to Rinku (respondent No.4) who resides at Ludhiana. She had gone there on her own. There, they had solemnized their marriage in a Mandir and started living together. Then her (Manju’s) brother came to know about it and he got her back from Ludhiana. At that time, Rinku (respondent No.4) had gone out. It is stated that Rinku had married her and had not done any forcible act. On the basis of the statement, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula recorded that he was satisfied that Manju had given her statement with her own consent and without any fear, coercion or undue influence. It is further stated that Manju had expressed her will to go to her in-laws place i.e. to Rinku at Ludhiana as he was major. So she was held free to go. Learned State counsel has submitted that the police is inquiring as regards the age of Manju and getting her medical examination conducted as to whether she is above 18 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of birth of Manju, minor daughter of the petitioner is 24.9.1998 and she is about 11 years of age only. It is submitted that a certificate in this regard has been issued by the Sarpanch and another certificate has been issued by the Child Welfare Officer with regard to age of Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [4] Manju. The petitioner may hand over the said certificates to the Police for the purpose of investigation. Keeping in view the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in which the age of age of Manju is recorded as above 18 years and the question regarding age still being inquired into and investigated by the Police; at this stage no directions are liable to be given for the purpose of investigation into the complaint (Annexure P1). The field of investigation is the domain of the Police and this Court is normally not to interfere in respect of the same unless it is shown that the Police has failed to carry out its duties. In case the petitioner is aggrieved against the inaction of the Police in not effectively investigating the case, he may in the first instance seek his remedy in the Court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) 392 it was observed that after registering a FIR, no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the said provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. In the circumstances, no further directions are liable to be issued by this Court. The petitioner may submit the copies of the birth certificates, which he has with him before the Police. Besides, Crl. Misc. No. M-33858 of 2009 [5] the petitioner may, if so advised, file an application before the concerned Magistrate for effective investigation of the case. It is needless to submit that if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. The Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 8, 2009 amit