Jharkhand High Court
Shradha Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 9 August, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, B.B. Mangalmurti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr) No.94 of 2017
Shradha Toppo .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Christina Xalxo
3. Imelda Xalxo
4. Ajit Kujur
5. Colostika
6. Fulginsia
7. Santi
8. Union of India
9. Superintendent of Police, District-Gumla
10. Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Ahtu (Chainpur)
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
For the Petitioner : Ms. Suchitra Pandey, Advocate
For the Res.2&4 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. Laxman Kumar, C.G.C.
07/09.08.2017Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner lodged an F.I.R. being Ahtu (Chainpur) P.S. Case No.14 of 2016 on 17th February, 2016 under Sections 363/365/367/368/370/371/374 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 23 and 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act against Christina Xalxo-respondent no.2 herein alleging that she had taken her 16 years old daughter Marybalance Toppo by deception to Delhi about eight years back. She accordingly sought action against the said accused apprehending that the girl has been sold at Delhi. Thereafter, she has preferred this writ application on 8th March, 2017 seeking writ of Haebeus Corpus for production of her daughter at the earliest. Ancillary prayer has also been made for investigation by C.B.I. or Special Investigating Team and also for completion of the investigation in the instant criminal case.
3. Respondent-State have filed their counter-affidavit in the matter. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent nos.2 & 4 were issued notice by the Investigating Officer under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.14 of 2016. Respondent no.4 has sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Gumla enclosing a copy of the missing report DD No. 30 PP JPN/ IP Estate Police Station, Delhi dated 29th June, 2006. According to the fardbeyan of the missing report, the daughter of the petitioner 2 was missing from DOA Flat on 23rd June, 2006. As per the information obtained under RTI by respondent no.4 furnished through MHC (R) IPE dated 7th May, 2016, the missing girl was traceless. The IP Estate Police Station has undertaken intensive search for the missing girl and respondent no.4 further intimated the SHO that he came to know through his relative that one girl Mary Toppo was seen near Moolchand and the girl is in Delhi. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla has constituted a special team for recovery of the missing girl vide memo no.1007/Go dated 22nd March, 2017 (Annexure-B). The Superintendent of Police, Gumla has through memo no.279/DCB dated 10th July, 2017 made a request to the Department of Information and Public Relations, Gumla, Jharkhand for publishing the name and address of the missing girl in the print and electronic media so that she may be traced at the earliest (Annexure-C). Further, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla has in compliance of memo dated 6th July, 2017 of the Director General of Police, Department of Crime Investigation, Jharkhand and letter dated 19th June, 2017 of the Secretary, Home Department, Government of India constituted a team for recovery of the missing girl under operation Muskan-III in Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra (Mumbai) and the name of the daughter of the petitioner was also included in the said list.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that all sincere efforts are made for recovery of the missing girl. The respondent no.3 accused-Christina Xalxo had moved this Court in anticipatory bail application no.2551 of 2016 which has been rejected by the order dated 27th July, 2017. Counsel for the State submits that the respondent authorities of the State are taking all prompt and diligent steps to ensure recovery of the missing child. However, this is not an isolated exercise. Recovery of missing children are an on going exercise under the Central Government Project i.e. operation Muskan-III. Petitioner is also guilty of inordinate delay and latches in preferring this writ petition after ten years. In the writ petition, petitioner has herself admitted that the girl is in Gurgaon and was taken with her consent for providing education and money in the year 2006. He submits that the prayer for issuance of writ of Haebeus Corpus under such circumstances is misconceived. However, the respondent authorities of the State would be taking all diligent steps to ensure her recovery.
3Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 4 are present and have also filed a counter-affidavit. These respondents have claimed innocence on their part and false implication by the petitioner in the criminal case.
4. We have considered the submission of counsel for the parties and relevant materials on record. We are of the considered view that the respondent State authorities are taking diligent steps for recovery of the missing girl, who even as per the admission of the petitioner, has been away in 2006 itself, though the F.I.R. was registered against the respondent no.2 in the year 2016 only. The process of recovery of missing children is an on going process and there is no point keeping this writ petition pending when the authorities of the State are pursuing the matter in right earnestness. We therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the observation that the concerned Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police, Gumla would take all possible legal steps in the matter.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Anit/R.P.