Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
Alsia Pardhi
Versus
State of M.P. & Others
Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9611 of 2012)
Decided on : 06-12-2013
Facts of the Case :
A.A Habeas Corpus petition was filed by appellant herein in the instant case for production of his niece, a minor girl alleging that she had been abducted by forest officials . Petition was dismissed by High Court holding that present case was not of illegal and forceful confinement warranting issue of a writ of habeas corpus but was a case of missing person.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. The only point for consideration in present appeal was whether there wasany lapse on the part of the State agency in carrying out the investigationand the facts and materials mandate for entrusting the investigation to theCBI?
Findings of the Court :
The Supreme Court held thatproper and sincere efforts were not made by State police in tracing/producing the girl before High Court in a habeas corpus petition.Hence it was held that appellant had made out a case for fresh investigation by other agency, viz., Central Bureau of Investigation. Directions were given accordingly. Appeal allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3803 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. Brief facts:
(a) On 10.02.2011, at about 4 p.m., a posse of forest officials of the Betul Range, District Betul, forcibly took away one Kusum, W/o Taarbabu Pardhi and Rajnandani, D/o Ankit Pardhi, aged about 14 years, from the fish market in their jeep. When the persons present at the site tried to resist the force of the forest officials, Kusum somehow managed to jump from the jeep but the minor girl Rajnandani was whisked away by them.
(b) Alsia Pardhi–the appellant herein, being the uncle of the kidnapped minor girl, on 13.02.2011, made a complaint to the SHO, Kotwali Betul, alleging that the minor girl is in the custody of the officials of the Forest Department and requesting to register a case of kidnapping against them.
(c) On 14.02.2011, the appellant and his community members made a complaint to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Range, Betul-Respondent No. 3 herein, requesting him to take punitive action against the forest officials and to get the minor girl released.
(d) When all the efforts in tracing the girl failed, the appellant, on 24.02.2011, approached the High Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus praying that Rajnandani be directed to be produced before the Court and the Superintendent of Police – Respondent No. 2 herein be directed to register an FIR against the forest officials involved in kidnapping and illegal detention of the minor girl as well as against those who have been instrumental in shielding and protecting the accused.
(e) On 01.03.2011, the High Court directed Respondent No. 2 herein to either produce the corpus of the missing girl or to submit the progress report. On 19.04.2011, the High Court, considering the seriousness of the matter, directed the appellant to produce Kusum before the CJM, Betul, on 02.05.2011, on which date, the CJM, Betul shall record her statement and send it to the Court.
(f) On 02.05.2011, the statement of Kusum was recorded. Vide order dated 13.07.2011, the High Court, taking note of the fact that Kusum also alleged against the forest officials who caught Rajnandani along with her, held that the matter deserves to be investigated fairly and effective steps need to be taken by the State for production of Rajnandani before the Court and also directed Respondent No. 2 to take effective steps to produce the minor girl on the next date of hearing.
(g) On 10.08.2011, i.e., on the next date of hearing, the Deputy Advocate General for the State filed a report in the matter and submitted that as per the report of the Police, Rajnandani was not detained by the Forest Officials. The High Court, after perusing the record and considering the report to be doubtful, granted further opportunity to the police to produce corpus of Rajnandani and also directed that in case Respondent No.2 fails to produce her on the next date of hearing, it would be compelled to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take up the investigation into its hands. On 27.08.2011, Respondent No. 2 again submitted a progress report. The High Court, being not satisfied with the report, directed the Superintendent of Police, Betul to appear in person on the next date of hearing. On 12.09.2011, when the Superintendent of Police, Betul explained the circumstances in which the investigation was being conducted, the High Court observed that no proper investigation had been done by the police with the forest officials against whom the allegations had been made and gave one more chance to the Respondent No. 2 to produce Rajnandani before the Court. On 17.10.2011, Respondent No. 2 again filed a progress report before the Court in which it was stated that Rajnandani had tried to contact her fat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
