Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sachin Vaishnav vs State & Ors on 10 January, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 4 / 2017
Sachin Vaishnav S/o Shri Kailash Vaishnav, By Caste Vaishnav, R/o
Nazarji Ki Bawdi, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Police Commissioner, Jodhpur.
2. SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
3. Ashok Jangid S/o Babu Lal Jangid, By Caste Jangid, R/o
Baldev Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gokulesh Bohra
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order 10/01/2017 The Petitioner alleges that his wife Divya has been abducted by respondent No.3 known to her since before her marriage. The Police registered a missing person report only. He filed a complaint case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur. Pursuant to the directions of the Magistrate, PS Pratap Nagar FIR No.583 of 2016 has been registered on 25.12.2016. The grievance is that the Police was not investigating properly and taking adequate steps to rescue the victim.
The extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have been available if the Police was not registering an FIR pursuant to a complaint with regard to a (2 of 2) [HC-4/2017] cognizable offence. A remedy was also available to the aggrieved before the Magistrate concerned under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner opted to pursue his remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure leading to directions and institution of an FIR on 25.12.2016 under Sections 365, 368, 384 & 120B IPC against the concerned. There is no statement in the writ petition what orders were passed by the Magistrate and by which date the Police was required to submit a progress report etc. We are not persuaded to hold parallel proceeding with the Magistrate. The recovery of the victim of a crime has to be a part of the investigation process. If a crime has been committed that does not become illegal detention. Therefore on technical grounds we are not persuaded to entertain this application styled as Habeas Corpus.
If an FIR has been registered pursuant to the directions of the Magistrate, the Police has a statutory duty to investigate and submit a report in accordance with the directions of the Magistrate. Any laxity in investigation by the Police will have its own consequences for the concerned in accordance with law. If the Petitioner files any application before the Magistrate concerned regarding the investigation, it is expected to be dealt with and considered in accordance with law without being prejudiced by our reluctance to entertain this application on technical grounds.
The writ petition is disposed with the said observations.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (NAVIN SINHA)C.J. ms/-63