Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 719 (RAJ)

Lakhanlal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2000-06-02

J.C.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - One Kumari Anjani Sharma daughter of Shri Madan Lal Sharma of village Piproa, District Dholpur was to appear in B.A. II year examination in Dholpur and, therefore, was staying with her uncle (Phupha, husband of father's sister) Shri Shivendra Prakash. Her examination were to start from 23.3.1995 and were to finish on 7.4.1995. She had appeared in the last examination on 7.4.1995. On the next morning on 8.4.1995 said Kumari Anjani vanished. Search was made but without any result and a report was lodged in the police station being FIR No. 375195. Police did riot take any action. Representations were made to the Home Minister and other authorities. Ultimately, the present writ petition was filed in the year 1995 itself by the unfortunate brother of unfortunate Kumari Anjani for a direction that the matter be referred for investigation to CBI. 2. Notices were issued on the writ petition on 4.12.1995. Service on the official respondents i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Superintendent of Police, Dholpur were completed in September, 1997, i.e. after about 2 years. 3. This court on 19.11.1997 had directed the respondents to file affidavit in regard to progress of the case by the Investigating Officer. The case diary was also called for. Similar order was passed on 16.1.1998. Presence of the concerned SHO was being sought by this court for filing the required affidavit. On 13.4.1998 certain direction was given by this court to the I.O. to make substantial efforts to recover Kumari Anjani. The case was adjourned to 27.5.1998, but for the reasons not specified, the case was not listed till 6.1.1999. On 6.1.1999, the I.O. was called with complete record of ) investigation. The I.O. did not appear on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.1.1999. The court suo-moto issued notices of contempt against the I.O. with certain directions, the case was adjourned to 8.2.1999. On the contempt notices, Mr. Govind Gupta, S.P. Dholpur was present on 17.2.1999 and had assured the court that he would look after the case of investigation of kidnapping Kumari Anjani at his personal level. It was in March 1999 that after going through the case diary it was found that even the police had not published the photograph of the girl in any news paper and investigations were being made in a very cursory manner. It was in March 1999 that after going through the case diary it was found that even the police had not published the photograph of the girl in any news paper and investigations were being made in a very cursory manner. The case was adjourned to 12.4.1999 with a direction that the police shall publish the photograph of the girl in all the important news papers i.e Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan Patrika and Nai Duniya etc. in the area bordering Rajasthan. U.P. and M.P. which surrounds district Dholpur. For about one year the case could not listed for any effective hearding. It was on 17.4.2000 when the case was listed and the SHO was called with the record for 24.4.2000. 4. Police diary was called for. So far as police is concerned, the SHO on 6.9.1995 itself had shaken off the case by making a report that the girl in question seems to be major and had run away and, therefore, no action is required and he had submitted the final report. The complainant had named certain persons in his complaint. There are certain persons in his complaint. There are certain letters said to have been received from said Anjani upon which the police had never tried to work and it was only on the direction of the High Court that the letters were sent to laboratory. Despite the names having been mentioned in the complaint of Mahesh son of Durga Prasad and certain other persons, there does not seem to be any progress in the case. There are certain letters on the file written by third party about certain threats to the person from whose house the girl had vanished. In the statement of Bunti D/o Shivendra Prakash, a mention has been made of one Mahesh to the effect that he had been harrasing Anjani by telephoning her. 5. During investigation, a report of Rojnamcha dated 18.2.1998 points out that certain relatives of the judicial officers were also telephoning the house where Anjani was staying and even statements in this regard of some judicial officers were also recorded. 6. After going through the whole of the record, I find that the investigation was not being conducted in the manner it should have been conducted. Even after the direction of this court to publish the photograph of the girl in question in various news papers. 6. After going through the whole of the record, I find that the investigation was not being conducted in the manner it should have been conducted. Even after the direction of this court to publish the photograph of the girl in question in various news papers. There does not seem to be real effort made on the part of the investigating agency to attract the attaction of the public even though the photograph of the girl was available with the police from the first day when the report was made. From the record the publication seems to have been made in inconspicuous manner only in Rajasthan Patrika on 11.4.1999 and in Dainik Bhaskar on 7.3.1999. 7. In my opinion, it was the duty of the police to have made a proper investigation and satisfy the complainant and citizen either by tracing the girl or to bring a proper report. When the names had been mentioned in the complaint itself. It was not difficult for the police to at least submit to interrogation to such persons which had not been done. It goes without saying that no arrest has been made. Either the police had made up its mind from the very beginning that no investigations are required on the presumption that the girl seems to have run away by her own will, be it be so, but it was the duty of the investigating agency to trace the girl wherever she is and to make all possible efforts in this regard which have not been made in the present case at all. 8. In the present case, even though about six years have passed, but the investigation do not show any real and sincere efforts on the part of the police for tracing the girl. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I consider it a fit case where the investigation of the case be transferred to the CBI. Director, CBI, Delhi is directed to take over the investigation in the above said FIR forthwith. Police shall transfer all the case files to the CBI and such Director, CBI, Delhi shall appoint a very competent officer not less than the rank of Dy.S.P. to investigate the matter and submit a report to this court within six months preferably. 10. Director, CBI, Delhi is directed to take over the investigation in the above said FIR forthwith. Police shall transfer all the case files to the CBI and such Director, CBI, Delhi shall appoint a very competent officer not less than the rank of Dy.S.P. to investigate the matter and submit a report to this court within six months preferably. 10. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 5029/95 above, there is hardly any necessity to proceed with the contempt any further. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. The notices stand discharged.Writ Petition allowed. *******