Delhi High Court
Lakshmi Chand vs State & Ors on 10 December, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M. A. No. 14456/2008 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1485/2007
% Date of Decision: 10.12.2008
Lakshmi Chand .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Ms. Suman
Chauhan, Advocates.
Versus
State & Ors .... Respondents
Through Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Rajat Katyal, Advocate for the
State/Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is an application by respondent Nos.2 to 6 seeking dismissal
of proceedings filed by the petitioner in toto and in the alternative to
delete the names of respondent Nos.2 to 6 from the array of parties.
The petitioner Lakshmi Chand has filed the petition seeking
direction to respondent Nos.2 to 6 to produce his daughter Sheetal and
for direction to the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against
respondent Nos.2 to 6.
The petitioner has contended that his daughter Sheetal is 17
years of age and missing since 9th November, 2007. She was studying in
12th standard in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Adarsh
Nagar, New Delhi. It is contended that the son of the petitioner was
beaten up by respondent No.2 and his friends Dharmender, Praveen
and Arvind. The son of the petitioner, therefore, had called the police.
After the police got the matter resolved respondent No.2 allegedly
threatened the son of the petitioner that he would teach him and his
family members a lesson.
The daughter of the petitioner is alleged to have gone to give
sweets to one of her aunt named Neetu living in Street No.5 in the same
locality at around 8 or 8.30 PM and did not return home. The petitioner
has contended that he has apprehension that his daughter is in illegal
custody of respondent Nos.2 to 6 and respondent No.1 is facilitating the
wrongful acts of respondent Nos.2 to 6 by not taking any legal action,
consequently, the present writ petition was filed.
The applicant has contended that during the pendency of the writ
petition a number of status reports have been filed and an FIR
No.90/2007 has been registered under Section 363/365 of Indian Penal
Code with Police Station Swaroop Nagar and charges have been framed
against respondent No.2. It is also contended that the narco analysis
test of respondent Nos.2 & 3 has been conducted and the report is
awaited as per the information available with respondent Nos.2 & 3.
The applicants/respondent Nos.2 to 6 have contended that since
chargesheet has already been filed against respondent No.2 they be
deleted as parties and the present petition be dismissed.
This is admitted that the daughter of the petitioner has not yet
been recovered and though the FIR has been registered against the
respondent No.2 and the chargesheet has been filed, however, in the
status report dated 14th October, 2008 it is stated that sincere efforts
are being made to trace out the missing daughter of the petitioner and
on account of change in jurisdiction of police station the present case
has been transferred to District Investigation Unit, North West district
and further investigations are being made in accordance with law.
Since the daughter of the petitioner has not yet been recovered
and the petitioner's apprehension is that respondent No.1 is not taking
appropriate legal action against respondent Nos.2 to 6, it cannot be said
that the petition against respondent Nos.2 to 6 has become infructuous
on account of FIR being filed only against respondent No.2. Considering
the facts and circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the petition has
become infructuous against respondent Nos.2 to 6 who are necessary
and in any case proper parties in the facts and circumstances.
Consequently, the application for dismissal of the present
proceedings in toto is without any legal basis nor there are grounds to
delete the names of respondent Nos.2 to 6 from the array of parties. The
application is without any legal basis and, therefore, it is dismissed.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1485/2007 & Crl. M. A. Nos. 1198-99/2008
The learned Standing Counsel for the State, Ms. Gupta states
that the Narco Analyses report is still awaited and needful shall be done
after obtaining the said report expeditiously.
Needful be done before the next date of hearing.
List on 29th January, 2009.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 10, 2008 V.K. SHALI, J.
'k'
