Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrinivas @ Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WP-15010-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON August 6, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15010 of 2019
SHRINIVAS @ PAPPU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri H.D.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Rajesh Goswami, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
Shri Avinash Nagar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking writ of habeas corpus for the
release of his son, Chhotu Rawat, from the illegal custody of respondent nos. 4 to
2. The petitioner lodged a missing person report, which was registered at
number 22/17 on 7/10/2017, to the effect that on 27/9/2017, at 2 PM, his son
Chhotu Rawat left the house to go to village Jaura and did not return. He
approached nearby places and relatives, but could not find his son. The report was
lodged at Police Station Jaura. After almost 1 year, the petitioner made a complaint
to the Chief Minister, DGP, IG, SP Morena, and SDO Jaura that his son had been
kidnapped, and the kidnappers, namely Rinku S/o Rajaram, Makhan S/o Shridhar
2 WP-15010-2019
Rawat, Padam Rawat S/o Ramji Rawat, Rajesh Rawat S/o Ramji Rawat, and
Rajaram S/o Nawal Singh R/o Sankara, were demanding Rs. 5 lacs in ransom, and
till date, the FIR had not been registered by the police. Petitioner sent a reminder
to DIG on 18/8/2018 as well as to Superintendent of Police on 5/12/2018.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before
this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 4264/2019. By order dated
11/3/2019, directions were issued to the Superintendent of Police to constitute a
committee comprising three senior police officers and submit a report. Thereafter,
vide order dated 9/7/2019, the M.Cr.C. was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty
to file a Habeas Corpus petition. Hence, the present petition has been filed before
this Court.
3. According to the petitioner, he has apprehension that his son is in the
illegal custody of respondent nos. 4 to 8, and it is prayed that respondent nos. 1 to
3 be directed to recover the corpus and produce it before this Court.
4. Respondents nos. 4 and 5 are neighbors and residents of Village Sankra.
Respondents nos. 6 and 7 are real brothers, both sons of Ramji Rawat, residents of
Village Aaroda. Rajaram is the son of Naval Singh, R/o Village Sankra. Petitioner
has not explained how respondent nos. 4 to 8 are related to each other and are
known to each other, except respondent nos. 6 and 7 are real brothers and happen
to be relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner has not given their antecedents as to
their involvement in human trafficking, as he suspects kidnapping and trafficking
of his son by them. However, this petition was entertained, and respondents nos. 1
to 3 were called upon to submit a status report, which was submitted on August
13, 2019. Police collected various information by recording the statements of local
residents, including Padam Rawat, Rajesh Rawat, and other residents. Thereafter,
3 WP-15010-2019
vide order dated February 18, 2021, this writ petition was dismissed as
infructuous, suspecting death of corpus. Thereafter, petitioner filed a review
petition (R.P. No. 1169/2023), and vide order dated 17/2/2024, this writ petition
was restored. The writ petition came up for hearing on May 28, 2024. After
perusing the statement of Padam Rawat, this Court directed the respondents to get
the status of Criminal Case No. 277 of 2017 and the entire criminal record of
Padam Rawat. A fresh status report has been filed after recording the statement of
Padam Rawat. So far as the criminal case against Padam Rawat at Crime No.
277/2017 is concerned, he has been acquitted vide judgment dated October 17,
2022, passed in S.T. No. 300/2017. After investigation, the police have not found
that the corpus is in the illegal custody of respondents nos. 4 to 8.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and
emphasized that the police are not making any serious efforts to search his son;
therefore, the investigation should be handed over to some other agency.
According to the petitioner, Padam Rawat is not giving the correct statement
before the police. He has not been properly interrogated to get the truth from him.
6. Heard.
7. The entire petition is based on the suspicion of the petitioner in
respondent nos. 4 to 8. As discussed above, they are not related to each other.
How they are interested in causing the death of the petitioner's son has not been
disclosed. The petitioner's son had some disputes with Padam Rawat. The corpus
was engaged to Durgesh Rawat, daughter of Kedar Rawat. She was a distant
relative of Padam Rawat. When Corpus met Padam Rawat, he came to know about
certain recorded telephonic conversations between Padam and Durgesh Rawat.
Corpus felt bad and disclosed it to his father, i.e., petitioner Shrinivas Rawat. The
Panchayat was called, and Padam Rawat was restrained from talking to Durgesh
4 WP-15010-2019
Rawat. Thereafter, Durgesh Rawat committed suicide. Padam Rawat was arrested
in Crime No. 277/2017 on September 19, 2017 and released on bail on November
23, 2017. In between, the corpus went missing on September 27, 2017.
Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent nos. 4 to 8 were behind the missing
corpus. Now, more than 7 years have passed. The petitioner must accept the hard
truth that his missing son is not traceable. He was major when he went missing.
Had he been alive, he would have contacted his father or other relatives. The
police have made the best possible efforts to search for him but could not find him.
The police may continue the search, but this petition, which is based on the
apprehension that corpus is in illegal custody of respondent nos. 4 to 8, is without
any material, and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
