Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 384 (MP)

Alsia Pardhi v. State of M. P.

2012-04-09

AJIT SINGH, R.S.JHA

body2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the petitioner’s niece (sister’s daughter) Ku. Rajnandini daughter of Ankit Pardhi aged 14 years. 2. It is stated that Rajnandini has been missing from the fish market at Betul since 4 O’clock in the evening of 10.2.2011 from where it is alleged that she was kidnapped by the officers of the forest department of Betul Range. It is also stated that the petitioner has also filed a report before Police Station Kotwali, Betul on 13.2.2011 but no action has been taken by the police authorities. 3. The respondents have filed a return wherein they have stated that the forest officials received information on 10.2.2011 that the petitioner alongwith members of the community were illegally indulging in the sale of prohibited species of animals in the fish market at Betul. Pursuant to the information, the Range Officer, Betul alongwith several forest guards including one female Forest Guard Sunanda Tekam reached the spot and found 2-3 women selling prohibited species of animals and consequently they were arrested and the animals were seized. However, before any action could be taken, the Forest Officers were surrounded by 100-150 persons of Pardhi Community who resisted their detention and managed to free all of them except one Sangeeta Pardhi who was able to slip away after causing injury to the lady Forest Guard Sunanda Tekam. It has been stated that no minor girl was either present or arrested on the spot. It has also been stated that a report to that effect was lodged by the Forest Range Officer, Betul at Police Station Kotwali on 10.2.2011 as well as by Sunanda Tekam and in view of the aforesaid, with a view to harass the forest officers, a false report was filed by the petitioner on 11.2.2011 in respect of Rajnandini. 4. The respondents have clearly stated that a missing person report has been registered at Police Station Kotwali, Betul, however in the said report no allegation against any of the forest officers have been made by the complainant Ankit Pardhi. It is brought on record that subsequently the petitioner filed another report on 13.2.2011 and 14.2.2011 wherein the present story was for the first time set up before the authorities. It is brought on record that subsequently the petitioner filed another report on 13.2.2011 and 14.2.2011 wherein the present story was for the first time set up before the authorities. The respondents have further stated that after registering the missing persons case the police has made all efforts to trace out the girl but she has not been located as yet inspite of the fact that her photographs have been displayed on Doordarshan as well as published in the Gazetted, etc. 5. On the previous occasion this Court had directed the police authorities to make further investigation and submit a progress report in compliance of which the respondents have filed periodical progress reports to indicate the steps taken by them for locating the missing girl but they have not been able to do so. 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the present case is not one of illegal and forceful confinement warranting issuance of a writ of habeas corpus but is a missing persons case which has been registered by the police and intensive efforts are being made by them to trace out the girl in question who is apparently missing since 10.2.2011. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sulochana Bai vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (1) MPLJ 339 has held that a writ of habeas corpus can be issued only in a case where there is an assertion of wrongful confinement by some person and cannot be issued in case of a missing person in respect of whom a case has been registered in the Police Station, as the issue as to what action should have been taken by the police authorities cannot be the subject matter of a writ of habeas corpus as there is no allegation that there has been wrongful confinement against any individual person. 8. In view of the aforesaid, as the police authorities have already registered a missing persons report and are taking all possible steps to trace out Rajnandini and as there is no allegation in the present petition to the effect that she has been subjected to wrongful confinement either by the forest authorities or the police, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.