Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 327 (MP)

DALI SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M P

2009-03-16

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the corpus of his brother and father namely Umesh kumar Shrivastava and Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava. The present petition has been filed on the allegation that they have been kidnapped by the respondents no. 5 and 6 avinash Shrivastava and Abhilash Shrivastava with the help of some criminal elements. It is contended that though an fir has been lodged, the respondents no. 1 to 4 have not submitted any positive report. ( 2. ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that her brother was married to Pratibha Shrivastava in the year 1999 who pressurized her brother to shift to Jabalpur on the threat that she would implicate the whole family in a criminal case and eventually did implicate them in an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur against the petitioner, her brother and father. ( 3. ) AS pleaded, wife of Umesh Kumar Shrivastava filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure for grant of maintenance before the learned family Judge, Jabalpur and the same was decided ex parte against the brother of the petitioner. The sister-in-law of the petitioner threatened on number of occasions to kill her brother and father with the support of respondents no. 5 and 6. Because of the said threats, brother of the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Police Station, Mahila Thana, jabalpur seeking police protection on 11. 12. 2001. It is contended that Umesh Shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava travelled from their Village to Jabalpur on 24. 9. 04 for appearing in a criminal case pending before the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, which was fixed for recording of evidence on 25. 9. 04. They never appeared before the said Court and counsel appearing for the accused contacted the petitioner by telephone on very next day and only then she came to know about the missing of her father and brother. She searched for them in all the Villages where her relatives live but the search was in vain. She lodged a missing report at the Police Station, Badi and in the said report, she had stated about her doubt as regards the role played by the respondents no. She searched for them in all the Villages where her relatives live but the search was in vain. She lodged a missing report at the Police Station, Badi and in the said report, she had stated about her doubt as regards the role played by the respondents no. 5 and 6 but unfortunately, the police did not mention their names in the FIR. She also submitted a report before respondents no. 2 and 3 but none of the respondents has taken any action. ( 4. ) CERTAIN newspaper items have been brought on record to highlight how the petitioner has endeavored to find the whereabouts of her brother and father. Various averments have been made how she has come to know about one pappu Sartaj and how some unknown persons have contacted said Pappu Sartaj at Central Jail. It is urged that pappu Sartaj Sujalpurwala who is in custody of Central Jail, ujjain had knowledge with regard to the kidnapping of her father and brother but no action is being taken. ( 5. ) IN this factual backdrop, a prayer has been made for the issue of a command to produce the father and brother of the petitioner before this Court. ( 6. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents no. 1 to 4 that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the petitioner, a missing report No. 15/04 was registered at police Station, Badi, Bhopal, Raisen and eventually Crime no. 87/05 under Section 364 of I. P. C. has been registered against unknown persons. On the report of the petitioner, statements of Nandlal alias Nandram Meena and respondents no. 5 and 6 have been recorded. Pamphlets have been published and distributed in all the Districts of Madhya pradesh. News items have been shown in T. V. and the same have been telecast in the programme "sansani" with the bio-data and photograph of Umesh Shrivastava and Ramesh shrivastava. News items have also been published in dainik bhaskar and nav Bharat. Radio massage has been sent to all the police stations in Madhya Pradesh informing about the two missing persons. The respondents have also sent police teams to Hoshangabad, Bhopal, Raisen, Jabalpur and bhilai to know the whereabouts of the missing persons. ( 7. ) IT is put forth that the said respondents have taken every possible step to trace out the missing persons. The respondents have also sent police teams to Hoshangabad, Bhopal, Raisen, Jabalpur and bhilai to know the whereabouts of the missing persons. ( 7. ) IT is put forth that the said respondents have taken every possible step to trace out the missing persons. It is also highlighted that Umesh Shrivastava was married to pratibha Shrivastava in the year 1999 and as differences arose, Pratibha Shrivastava initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of I. P. C. against Umesh Shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava. ( 8. ) A reply has been filed by the respondents No. 5 and 6 stating inter alia, that the allegations made are incorrect. They have put forth how a criminal case under Section 498-A, 506 of I. P. C. and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act forming the Crime No. 26/01 came to be initiated wherein Umesh Shrivastava, Ramesh Shrivastava and Dali Shrivastava were arrested. It is contended that in the wedlock, one male child namely, Shorya, has been born. A reference has been made to application filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also there is a mention with regard to order granting interim maintenance. The allegation of threat by wife of Umesh Shrivastava has been denied. There is also an assertion denying any knowledge with regard to the missing persons. ( 9. ) IT is highlighted that in the FIR, the petitioner had not mentioned the names of respondents no. 5 and 6. It is further put forth that Umesh Shrivastava and Ramesh shrivastava had taken a loan of Rs. 10 lacs in the name of petitioner from Khadi Gram Udyog and recovery proceedings of Rs. 15 lacs is pending against the petitioner wherein the said Ramesh Shrivastava and Umesh Shrivastava are guarantors, who had mortgaged their land and till today not a single installment has been paid. The said Umesh shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava have also taken loan from many persons from Bhopal and from their village Badi where their agricultural land is situated. They had further taken loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from one Sanjay Sharma, bhopal who had obtained a decree against them. In essence, it is set forth that due to present situation, said Umesh shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava have absconded. ( 10. ) WE have heard Mr. N. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for respondents no. 1,50,000/- from one Sanjay Sharma, bhopal who had obtained a decree against them. In essence, it is set forth that due to present situation, said Umesh shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava have absconded. ( 10. ) WE have heard Mr. N. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6. ( 11. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents no. 1 to 4 to produce the corpus of umesh Shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava before this court and the search made by investigating team is inadequate. ( 12. ) PER contra, Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that they have given details of search and they undertake to proceed as per the F. I. R. Mr. Abhinav dubey, learned counsel submitted that the said persons had absconded to avoid the criminal proceedings and auction of their property as they are guarantors and pending of other execution proceeding because of the decree. ( 13. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material documents brought on record, we are inclined to think the respondents no. 1 to 4 have taken appropriate steps in searching said Umesh shrivastava and Ramesh Shrivastava. There had been paper publications and telecast in the T. V. and appropriate steps have been taken in the electronic and print media. On a perusal of the FIR it is noticeable no names had been mentioned. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are only inclined to state as conceded to by Mr. Deepak Awasthy, the responde nts should act on the F. I. R. and accordingly it is so ordered. ( 15. ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of.