Shri Jura Lugun vs The Commissioner Of Police And ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 1000 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner-Jura Lugun, an uneducated adivasi seeks a writ of habeas corpus against respondents for production of his daughter Kumari Somari stated to be illegally confined by respondents 4 and 5. Petitioner alleges that his daughter aged around 17 years had come to Delhi in January, 2001 for employment. She got employed as a domestic help with respondent No. 4.

2. Petitioner alleges ill treatment of his daughter, rape of her person by respondent No. 4 resulting in impregnation and non payment of her salary. Petitioner alleges that his daughter was sent by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5 and his daughter in Allahabad. Petitioner avers that he is desirous of taking his daughter with him to his native village and of marrying her but she continues to be illegally detained by respondents 4 and 5.

3. Notice was issued. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to investigate the matter and produce Somari on the next date. Respondents 4 and 5 were present along with Somari. Petitioner was not present. Complete medical examination of Somari was directed to report whether she is habituated to intercourse and whether she had been through an abortion following pregnancy. We had also spoken to Km. Somari in chambers. Statement of respondent No. 4-Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta was also recorded on 23rd May, 2006.

4. Jura Lugun, father of Ms. Somari presented himself for 24th May, 2006. Kumari Somari has also met with Jura Lugun. She is desirous of joining her father and going back to her native village Khizri, Distt. Gumla, Jharkhand. Medical examination of Ms. Somari had also been carried out which has confirmed hymen being torn and PV examination findings are compatible with an abortion.

5. The statement of Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta and preliminary enquiries as made from Kumari Somari are suggestive of her liaison with a security guard whose name etc. she does not know. Respondent No. 4, it appears had information of this, but failed or act or disclose the same. Petitioner states that he is desirous of taking his daughter with him and getting her married in his native place. He prays for payment of her dues being made.

6. She worked approximately for a period of four years and few months. She was being paid Rs. 1000/- per month with food and clothing. The total dues would work out to around Rs. 50,000/-. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 Ms. Rashmi Singhal submits that they have actually paid around Rs. 20,000/- to the placement agency and Rs. 6000/- was paid to the father. Petitioner states that neither he nor his daughter received any amount from the placement agency. In case the respondents had made the payments to the placement agency without obtaining any proper receipts from the said agency or authorization by the petitioner or his daughter to the agency to collect for her, they cannot be absolved of the responsibility of payment of wages. Of course, they would have a right to claim the amount from the said placement agency, if paid to them.

7. Ms. Rashmi Singhal, on instructions from respondents No. 4 and 5, who are present in Court, states that they would pay in all, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in full and final settlement of all the claims of Somari and petitioner including some ex-gratia amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner and Ms. Somari, states that the same is acceptable. Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand) has been paid by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in cash. Same has been received by Kumari Somari and the petitioner in full and final settlement of all claims.

8. Considering the background, lack of education of the petitioner and other limitations of Ms. Somari and the petitioner, the amount being paid to them is likely to be squandered and frittered away. We accordingly, suggested to the petitioner and Kumari Somari that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of Kumari Somari in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch for a period of three years which would provide sufficient security and income to her and the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- would meet their immediate expenses and needs. Petitioner and Ms.Somari are amenable to the same.

9. Accordingly, we direct that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- be deposited with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in a fixed deposit in the name of Ms.Somari for a period of three years. The Addl. SHO who is present would render necessary assistance in having this amount deposited in the bank. Photocopy of the fixed deposit receipt be filed on the record of this case and the original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to Ms.Somari. UCO Bank shall permit premature encashment or withdrawal only with the leave of the court.

Ms. Somari is free to accompany her father.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Copy of the order be sent to the Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.