1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.179 OF 2001 1. Lalwant Kaur w/o Kumbhasingh Sardar, Age 60 years, Occ. Household, R/o Gat No.4, Shahidpura, Nanded. 2. Kumbhasingh s/o Bhagwansingh Sardar, Age 75 years, Occ. Nil. R/o as above. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on A.P.P., Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, District Nanded. 3. Prasad s/o Madanrao Shinde, Age major, Occ. Police Sub Inspector, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. 4. Devidas s/o Eknathrao Shelke, Age major, Occ. P.S.I., Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded (At present at P.S. Sonkhed, Tq. Loha, District Nanded.) 2 5. Virendrasingh @ Veeru s/o Aasasingh Boongai, Age 30 years, Occ. Police Constable, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. 6. Jagjeetsingh @ Jaggu s/o Hujarasingh Sahu, Age 28 years, Occ. Police Constable, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. 7. Surjeetsingh @ Sujja s/o Jaimalsing Boongai, Age 25 years, Occ. Police Constable, Headquarter, Nanded. 8. Charanjeetsing @ Channa s/o Shobhasingh, Age 26 years, Occ. Police Head Constable, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. 9. Sudhakar Kamathwar, Age major, Occ. Police Head Constable, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. 10. Hausaji Marakwad, Age major, Occ. Police Constable, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded. 11. Ravindrasingh s/o Aasasingh Boongai, Age 55 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Gate No.4, Shahid Pura, Nanded. 12. Roshansingh s/o Darshansingh, Age 25 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Gate No.4, Shahidpura, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ----- Shri N.G. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.3, 4, 9 & 10 ----- 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 29th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce the son of the petitioners named Manjeetsingh and by virtue of prayer clause (C) to the petition, the petitioners pray that an offence be registered against the offenders named in the report submitted by the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, in the night intervening between 14.2.2001 and 15.2.2001, the respondent Nos.3 to 12 had come to the house of the petitioners and had taken Manjeetsingh along with them. On the next day morning when the petitioners had gone to Police Station, Vazirabad and enquired from the respondents, the petitioners were not given any satisfactory answer. According to the petitioners, though their son Manjeetsingh was in the custody of the police officers, the police officers had illegally detained Manjeetsingh and had not released him. 4 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in- reply, it is denied that Manjeetsingh was taken into custody by the respondents. It is further stated that the antecedents of Manjeetsingh are not good inasmuch as 18 cases involving serious offences have been registered against him and Manjeetsingh had been convicted in Crime No.199/1989 under Sections 341, 363, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also stated that Manjeetsingh is wanted in about 9 offences. 4. Rule came to be issued by this Court vide its order dated 13.6.2001. In respect of relief prayed at prayer clause (C) to the petition, i.e. of directing the respondents to register an offence, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted to the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee & ors. Vs. Union of India & others (2007 (6) SCC 171. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others (AIR 2008 SC 907. In that light of the matter, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed insofar as it prays for the relief at prayer clause (C) to the petition. 5. In respect of the relief which is prayed for, for issuance of writ of habeas corpus, respondents, in their affidavit- 5 in-reply, have denied that the son of the petitioners was in custody of the respondents. It is also stated that the police would continue with their efforts at searching the whereabouts of the son of the petitioners. It is also stated that a special team has been formed for tracing the whereabouts of the son of the petitioners. 6. Since the respondents have denied that Manjeetsingh was in the custody of the respondents or has been illegally detained by them, the petition is rendered without any merits. We, however, accept the statement of the respondents that no efforts would be spared by the respondents in tracing the whereabouts of the son of the petitioners. We also direct the respondents to ensure that there is no laxity in their efforts at tracing the whereabouts of the son of the petitioners. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid directions to the respondents. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] fmp/cwp179.01