Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkaran Singh Bhadoria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.17528/2018
(Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others)
Gwalior, Dated : 01.04.2019
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents
No. 1 to 3.
Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya, CSP Bhind is present in person. Unfortunately this case has come up for hearing after five months of its last listing whereas this petition is in the nature of habeas corpus where a minor girl is missing. This case was listed for the last time on 22.10.2018 and on the said date it was submitted by the counsel for the State that they would be filing the latest status report during course of the day and as per the record the status report was filed on 25.10.2018.
Today, although Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya, CSP Bhind is present in person but for the reasons best known to the police authorities they have chosen not to file the status report and again a week's time was sought for filing the status report.
As Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya is present in the Court along with the case diary, therefore, before considering the prayer of the State counsel for adjournment, this Court find it appropriate to inquire about the steps taken by the police authorities for the recovery of the missing girl.
After going through the police case diary, it is submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that after 15.10.2018 the next case diary proceedings was written for the first time by his predecessor on 22.11.2018 and in that case diary proceedings also it is merely mentioned that the missing girl was searched in Ranipura and Town of Bhind and bus stand and railway station. The next case diary proceeding was written on 26.12.2018 i.e. after more than one month of the previous case diary proceedings and in this case diary proceedings also it is merely mentioned that the missing corpus and the accused persons were searched in Ranipura, Itawa Chouraha, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) Diddi, Deenpura etc. but their whereabouts could not be traced. Thereafter, the predecessor of Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya did not take care to even open the case diary. Shri Dinesh Singh joined as CSP Bhind on 3.3.2019 and after 26.12.2019 the case diary was seen by Shri Singh on 3.3.2019. On 3.3.2019 the steps taken by the predecessor were merely reproduced and the case diary proceedings were closed. Thus, it is clear that on 3.3.2019 Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya was already aware of the missing person. Although, the missing person is a minor girl aged about 16 years, but thereafter the case diary was opened on 31.03.2019 and it is mentioned in the case diary proceedings dated 31.03.2019 that Sub Inspector Shri Mangal Singh Pakola was sent to Gwalior where the missing person was searched at bus stand, railway station, Gola Ka Mandir and area around Gwalior. However, Shri Dinesh Singh fairly conceded that Sub Inspector Mangal Singh Pakola was not sent to Gwalior for the search of the missing person only but he fairly conceded that Mangal Singh Pakola was sent by the Town Inspector Kotwali, District Bhind to Gwalior on 31.03.2019 for other works also. Thus, it is clear that as one Sub Inspector from Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind was coming to Gwalior in connection with other works, therefore, in all probabilities case diary dated 31.03.2019 has been written to show that the police had sent Shri Mangal Singh Pakola, Sub Inspector specifically for searching the whereabouts of missing persons.
It is really surprising that on 30.03.2019 the cause list of 1.4.2019 was already uploaded and the police authorities were aware of the listing of this case on 1.4.2019, therefore, by way of an eyewash, it appears that the case diary proceedings dated 31.03.2019 have been written showing that Sub Inspector Mangal Singh Pakola posted in Police station Kotwali, Bhind was sent to Gwalior for searching the missing person.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) Since Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya, CSP Bhind is present in person, therefore, he is directed to file the status report today itself.
Call this case at 2.30 pm. In the meanwhile, the State counsel is also directed to either keep the Superintendent of Police Bhind present before this Court or to apprise him about the lethargic attitude of the police authorities in searching out the whereabouts of the missing persons and to make a submission about the stand of the Superintendent of Police Bhind at 2.30 pm in case if he is unable to appear before this Court in the light of the election of Parliament.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge van THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) Later on (after 2:30 PM) Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3/ State.
The status report has been filed by the State.
Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, after seeking necessary instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, has assured that the Superintendent of Police, Bhind shall personally monitor the proceedings.
The present petition is in the nature of Habeas Corpus. The reply submitted by Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, does not appear very plausible. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Bhind has taken the matter very lightly. When the police authorities/Investigating Officer have not taken any interest in searching out the missing corpus in spite of the fact that the Habeas Corpus petition is pending before this Court, then this Court is of the view that the Superintendent of Police, Bhind should have taken the matter seriously and should have taken some action against the erring Investigating Officer(s), but it appears that in stead of correcting its own police authorities, the simple submission that now he shall monitor the case personally is not sufficient because he is trying to save his own police officers at the cost of minor girl, who is missing for the last near about a year. Thus, this attitude of Superintendent of Police, Bhind cannot be appreciated.
It is submitted by Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, that on 22/09/2018 a status report was filed. Along with the said status report, a letter dated 16/09/2018 written by the CSP, Bhind to Town Inspector V.V. Karkare and ASI Radheyshyam Tiwari, has been annexed in which by pointing out certain lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the CSP had sought reply from the officers as to why a proposal for initiating departmental enquiry against these THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) persons may not be sent to the Senior Police Officers. In the same letter, the CSP, Bhind had instructed the Investigating Officer to carry out the investigation in a particular manner. By filing a copy of the letter dated 16/09/2018 along with the status report dated 22/09/2018, the respondents had tried to create an impression in the mind of the Court that Senior Officers are making sincere efforts to trace out the missing girl but unfortunately, reality was otherwise. From the police case diary, it appears that on 16/09/2018 itself, a SIT was constituted by the CSP, Bhind under the leadership of Town Inspector V.V. Karkare, City Kowali, Bhind. Surprisingly, on the same day, the CSP, Bhind had also expressed his displeasure about the manner in which the investigation was being done by V.V. Karkare, Town Inspector. In the same SIT, Sub-Inspector Radheyshyam Tiwari whose efforts were not sufficient, was also made a member apart from three constables. The case diary proceedings show that on the next date i.e. 17/09/2018, Shri Alok Sharma, CSP, District Bhind in its diary proceedings has mentioned that the SIT has been constituted. The SIT was given certain instructions to make investigation. The case diary also contains Rojnamcha Sahna dated 16/09/2018 written at serial no.34, according to which, Sub-Inspector Radheyshyam Tiwari and ASI Dharam Singh Tomar came back to the police station and mentioned that some persons against whom perpetual warrants of arrest have been issued, were searched and they could not be traced out and similarly, minor corpus could not be traced. Another Rojnamcha Sahna dated 15/09/2018 written at serial no.24 is a part of case diary according to which, ASI Radheyshyam Tiwari and ASI Dharam Singh Tomar had gone to search the persons against whom the perpetual warrants of arrest were issued but they could not be traced. Accordingly, on 24/09/2018, a reward of Rs.5,000/- was declared by the Superintendent of Police, Bhind. Thereafter, on THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) 24/09/2018 once again the CSP, Bhind issued a letter to Town Inspector V. V. Karkare, City Kotwali, Bhind and ASI Radheyshyam Tiwari and once again expressed his displeasure and sought a reply from SHO, as to why a proposal for departmental action against him may not be forwarded to the Senior Police Officers apart from certain directions mentioned in the said letter. It appears that although Shri Alok Sharma, CSP, Bhind had, on the one hand, was fulfilling the formalities by writing letters to the subordinate officers but on the other hand, he himself was doing same thing. The case diary reveals that on 24/09/2018, the case diary proceedings have been written by Shri Alok Sharma, CSP, Bhind himself and in the case diary proceedings, it is mentioned that by order dated 24/09/2018, the Superintendent of Police, Bhind has declared a reward of Rs.5,000/- for giving information about the accused persons as well as missing corpus and in the said police case diary proceedings, it is also mentioned that the direction given in the letter dated 16/09/2018 may be complied with. Thereafter, the next police case diary proceeding is dated 15/10/2018 which was also written by Shri Alok Sharma, CSP, Bhind. In the said case diary proceedings, it is mentioned that the pamphlets were pasted at public places like bus stand, railway station, etc. Then, again there is a silence of more than a month and the case diary was reopened on 22/11/2018, according to which the CSP, Bhind himself has searched the missing corpus in Ranipura, town of Bhind, bus-stand, and railway station but her whereabouts could not be traced out. Thereafter, the case diary was opened on 22/12/2018 i.e. after a month and again by merely repeating that the missing person was searched in Ranipura, Itwaha Chauraha, Diddi, Deenpura, but their whereabouts could not be traced out, nothing else was done. Thereafter, Shri Alok Sharma, CSP, Bhind did not care to even open the case diary. Thus, it is clear that the letter dated 16/09/2018 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) written by Shri Alok Sharma, CSP, Bhind to his subordinates was nothing but a waste piece of paper, to convince this Court that the Senior Police Officers are trying hard to trace out the missing persons.
In the morning session when the case diary was personally seen by this Court, it was found that the next case diary proceedings after 3rd March, 2019 was of 31st March, 2019. However, in the status report which has been submitted by the State, it is mentioned that on 26th March, 2019, an explanation from the police officers was taken and letter dated 26 th March, 2019 has been issued to Shri Sanjay Singh Soni, SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhind for ensuring to take personal interest in the matter. It is also mentioned that the father of the missing corpus was searched in village Ranipura, however, he was not found there and accordingly, it is mentioned that after the accused and the minor corpus are recovered, further proceedings would be done. Sub-Inspector Mangal Singh Pakola, and ASI Radheyshyam Tiwari were directed to continue the investigation. This case diary proceedings of dated 26th March, 2019 was not in the case diary when the case diary was seen by this Court in the morning session. When it was enquired from Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya as to why the case diary proceedings dated 26/03/2019 were not in the morning session, then it was submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that in fact, it was in the case diary. It appears that the case diary contains two copies of case diary proceedings dated 31/03/2019 and both the proceedings have been signed by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya. One copy of case diary proceedings dated 31 st March, 2019 is attached with the case diary prior to case diary proceedings dated 26 th March, 2019 and another copy of case diary proceedings dated 31 st March, 2019 is attached after the case diary proceedings dated 26 th March, 2019. When it was specifically enquired from Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) as to why the case diary proceedings dated 26 th March, 2019 has been attached after the case diary proceedings dated 31 st March, 2019, whereas he should have been attached prior to proceedings dated 31st March, 2019, then it was submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that while preparing the return he had taken out the papers from the case diary and after arranging the same, a mistake has been committed by him. When the attention of Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya was drawn to the case diary proceedings which contain two copies of proceedings dated 31/03/2019, then it is submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that the case diary proceedings are prepared in three copies. One copy of case diary proceedings is kept in his office along with Rojnamcha Sahna and another copy of case diary proceedings is kept in the case diary. It is fairly conceded by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that as per police regulations, the original Rojnamcha Sahna is sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, however, he submitted that as the case diary proceedings dated 31 st March, 2019 were written yesterday, therefore, he could not send the same to Superintendent of Police, Bhind.
Be that whatever it may.
Even if the case diary proceedings dated 26 th March, 2019 is taken into consideration, then it is clear from the said case diary proceedings that the explanation of Sub-Inspector Mangal Singh Pakola, Police Station Kotwali, Bhind and ASI Radheyshyam Tiwari was taken and a letter was issued to Shri Sanjay Singh Soni, Inspector of Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind to monitor the investigation by taking personal interest. However, when Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya was asked about the copy of the explanation submitted by Sub-Inspector Shri Mangal Singh Pakola and ASI Radheyshyam Tiwari, then he clarified that in fact, the explanation was sought from these two persons and by mistake it has been mentioned that the explanation has been given by these two persons.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) At this stage, it is submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that the father of missing corpus had gone to Surat (Gujarat) about five-six years back for earning his livelihood and for the last five to six years, he was residing in Gujarat, whereas he is permanent resident of Ranipura. It is further submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that the missing person was also residing with her father in Surat (Gujarat).Thus, if the contention of Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya that the father of missing corpus at present is residing in Surat (Gujarat), then there was no reason for police authorities to go to Ranipura to find out the whereabouts of the missing person or her father. It is clear that the police officers are well aware of the present address of the father of missing person but still they were completing the paper formalities by mentioning that the police had gone to village Ranipura and town of Bhind but the whereabouts of the corpus could not be traced.
From the status report dated 27/04/2018, it appears that the father of the missing person was called by the Investigating Officer and he was given advice and was allowed to go back to Surat (Gujarat). The status report dated 22/09/2018 also contains the Tasdik Panchnama according to which, on 19/08/2018 the police authorities had gone to Gujarat to search but her whereabouts could not be traced. Thus, it is clear that from 19/08/2018 onwards, the police had concentrated at village Ranipura and surrounding area only.
Be that as it may.
As the Superintendent of Police, Bhind has given an assurance that he would personally monitor the matter, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Bhind is directed to constitute a SIT headed by himself who would file the status report on weekly basis before this Court. It is made clear that every status report has to be signed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhind only and any THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.17528/2018 (Ramkaran Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. & Others) deviation from this order shall be viewed very seriously. Once the SIT would be under the leadership of Superintendent of Police, then any lethargy on the part of the police authorities shall be considered to be the personal responsibility of Superintendent of Police, Bhind also, as he himself has taken a task of monitoring the investigation.
A departmental circular dated 30/03/2018 has been issued by the Police Headquarter to the effect that because of non-execution of arrest warrants, the DGP is required to file affidavit, therefore, no lethargy in execution of the warrant shall be tolerated. In the present case also, the police officers have shown complete hostile attitude. Thus, apart from the status report, the Superintendent of Police, Bhind is also directed to suggest the departmental action against the erring Investigating Officers(s) because not only the Predecessor of Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya had kept the investigation pending without doing anything in the matter but even Shri Dinesh Singh Vaishya after coming to know that the minor girl is missing and the Habeas Corpus petition is pending before this Court, did not care to take pains of investigating the matter. After the case was listed before this Court and it was uploaded in the cause list, by way of eye-wash, the case diary proceedings dated 3 rd March, 2019 have been written specifically when one of Sub-Inspectors,Police Station Kotwali, Bhind had already come to Gwalior in connection with some other case. It is once again clarified that every status report has to be signed by Superintendent of Police, Bhind personally.
List this case on 8th April, 2019.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2019.04.02 19:25:28 +05'30'