IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.869 of 2010 URMILA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh,Advocate For the State :- Government Pleader No. 16 10. 15 .12.2010 The complainant of complaint case No. 389 of 2010, Urmila Devi, has filed this application for directing the respondent authorities to recover and produce her son Mithlesh Sahni, one of the witnesses in complaint case. Further for a direction to the respondent to act in accordance with law against the offender, who committed rape on her daughter-in-law Meena Devi and subsequently attempted to commit suicide, due to negligent attitude of the State and its authorities victim died. Her dead body was also taken away by the offender and despite all efforts of the petitioner; no post mortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased Meena Kumari. It has also been one of the prayers that the petitioner has falsely been named as accused by the authorities, as such in the facts and circumstances necessary relief be allowed to them. 2 Considering the relief prayed by the petitioner, which indicated that the Investigating Agency is not properly investigating the case and not taking proper interest in awarding safeguard to the petitioner and her family, direction was issued to the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur and the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station for filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the facts which were revealed that the petitioner has made several false statements. In fact her son Mithilesh Sahni was killed by one Savitri Devi for which Rosera P.S. case No. 97 of 2010 has been instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner herself had identified the dead body of her son, as such the relief prayed by the petitioner for production of her son Mithilesh Sahni is a prayer made by suppressing facts. So far Meena Devi is concerned, she had filed complaint case alleging attempt of rape by three named accused persons on the basis of complaint case First Information Report was instituted under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide 3 Khanpur P.S. case no.109 of 2007 and after investigation the allegation was found to be false. Meena Devi, in similar manner had earlier also filed Rosera P.S. case No. 97 of 2010, which was also found false after investigation. Meena Devi was asked to appear for her medical examination before the doctor at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur but she did not appear for medical examination. So far death of Meena Kumari is concerned, she tried to commit suicide because of some family dispute. Khanpur P.S. case No. 126 of 2010 has been instituted in this regard on the petition of one Phool Kumari Devi, mother of deceased Meena Kumari. The case is being investigated to ascertain the circumstances leading to death of Meena Devi. The counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents and reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner sufficiently indicate that the relief which has been prayed by the petitioner in this writ application is not maintainable. It is not a case, which can be entertained for issuance of habeous corpus. Since the petitioner had 4 full knowledge of this fact that her son has been murdered and in this regard a police case has already been instituted. She was called by the Investigating agency to identify unknown dead body and she herself identified as her son Mithilesh Sahni. She had no reason to make a prayer for production of her son by filing writ of Habeous Corpus. The Police case instituted in this regard is being investigated. The investigation being the domain of police, this Court cannot direct the mode and method of investigation to the police. There is no reason for keeping this matter pending any more, on perusal of the material on record and different affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent authorities. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. A.Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)