Prasanna Jain v. State of M.P. & Ors.

“Shri T.K.Modh, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 5 alongwith police officers, Shri U. K. Dixit, T.I. and Shri Sharad Khampariya, ASI, Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur, present. Shri Anil Khare, Counsel along with respondents No.6 & 8, present. Shri Anurag Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.7. This is a petition for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against the respondents to produce corpus of Parul Jain, daughter of petitioner. This petition was filed on 25.4.2011 and on 27.4.2011, we directed respondents No.4 & 5 to produce the corpus of Parul Jain before this Court. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various occasions. Inspite of repeated directions to the respondents, corpus of Parul Jain could not be produced. The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur also appeared before this Court on 25.7.2011 and assured this Court that within a period of one month, corpus of Parul Jain shall be produced before this Court, but inspite of this, corpus of Parul Jain could not be produced. Yesterday, a progress report has been filed by the State. From the perusal of the report, we find that merely writing Rojnamcha entries, no serious efforts were made by the police to produce corpus of the girl. The allegations of the petitioner are specific and it appears that inspite of information submitted by the petitioner, corpus has not been produced before this Court. In these circumstances, we find that local police have totally failed in tracing out and producing corpus of Parul Jain before this Court. Though we were proposing to hand over the matter to the CBI, but before passing such an order, we find it appropriate to issue direction to the Director General of Police, Bhopal M.P., respondent No.2, to make efforts in respect of production of corpus of Parul Jain before this Court. We accordingly direct the respondent No.2 to produce corpus of Parul Jain before this Court on next date of hearing, but in case, corpus is not produced by the State authorities before this Court, then respondent No.2 shall appear in person before this Court to explain and justify his and police efforts in respect of failure for the production of the corpus of Parul Jain before this Court and in that circumstances, we will consider the prayer of the petitioner for handing over investigation/matter to the CBI for compliance of the order passed by this Court. Now the matter be listed for hearing on 21/11/2011, on which date respondent No.2 to produce the corpus of Parul Jain before this Court. A copy of this order be transmitted by the Registry to respondent No.2 by Fax by next working day for its compliance by respondent No.2 in letter and spirit.” Today, respondent no.2, the Director General of Police, Bhopal has submitted his explanation along with progress report in the matter. The Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, Shri V. Madhukumar and the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur District, Jabalpur, Shri Santosh Kumar are also present. We have heard aforesaid both the officers. They have stated that to trace out Parul Jain, they had made all the serious efforts as per directions of the Director General of Police. 40 special teams of police officers were sent to various parts of the country. Near about 20 suspected cell numbers were kept under continuous surveillance. Cells of suspected persons were also kept in surveillance. The College where Parul Jain was studying was again kept under watch. The police have announced a reward of Rs.25,000/- in respect of furnishing any clue or information of whereabouts of Parul Jain. But nothing could be revealed. A detailed progress report is filed on record. After hearing the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur and the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, we find that several efforts have been made by the police to trace out Parul Jain, but nothing could be revealed. In view of the aforesaid, we find that in spite of all the aforesaid efforts and the progress report filed by the police on record, Parul Jain is not traceable. So no fruitful purpose will be served to keep this matter pending and accordingly, we dispose of this matter with following directions: 1) A Police Officer under the leadership of the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur shall continue to make search of Parul Jain for a period of one year and a periodical report he submitted by him to the I.G in respect of the efforts made by the police officer to search out Parul Jain. 2) The I.G. Police, Jabalpur shall continue to monitor the efforts made by the police officer to trace out Parul Jain. 3) A copy of the progress report be provided to the complaint as and when demanded by him. Certified copy as per Rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (T.K.Kaushal) Judge Judge JLL W.P.No. 10518 of 2009

18.2.2010. Shri Ashish Nema, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, G.A. for respondent No.7 Service on respondents No. 1 to 6 is awaited. List after service. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha) W.P.No. 14920 of 2007

18.2.2010. Shri Hemant Chouhan, counsel for the petitioner. I.A.9910/09 an application for bringing the proposed L.R.s on record & I.A.9914/09 for condonation of delay. Heard on these two applications. Issue notice to the proposed Legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on payment of P.F. within 7 days. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha) W.P.No. 10815 of 2009

18.2.2010. Shri Satish Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Agarwal, counsel for the respondents No.1 and

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Respondent No.3 has also engaged him and he wants to file return on its behalf. Let the return be filed within 2 weeks as prayed. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha) W.P.No. 1804 of 2010

18.2.2010. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Let copy of the issues which are framed be filed within two working days. List in the next week as prayed. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha) W.P.No. 823 of 2010

18.2.2010. Shri R.P. Khare, Advocate and Shri Vaibhav Khandelwal, counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to withdraw this petition and would like to raise the point involved in this petition, in appeal, if the occasion so arises. Prayer is accepted. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the point which the petitioner has raised in this petition in appeal, if any, is filed. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha) W.P.No. 778 of 2010

18.2.2010. Shri N.P.Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue show cause notice to the respondent on payment of P.F. within three days failing which this petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. Let notice be made returnable within 2 weeks. List this matter for final disposal in the qeek commencing from 22nd March,2010. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha) W.P.No. 631 of 2010

18.2.2010. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue show cause notice to respondent No.2 on payment of P.F. within 7 days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Bench. Let the record of the Labour Court be also called. (A.K. Shrivastava ) Judge Judge (R.S. Jha)