JUDGMENT

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents authorities to recover the daughter-in-law and infant grandson of the petitioner from the illegal custody of respondent nos. 5 to 9.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 10 is the husband of the victim lady who is adopted son of the petitioner and his biological father is Sunil Thakur, full brother of the petitioner. He contended that the wife of respondent No. 10 went together with his agnates, respondent nos. 5 to 9 along with her 15 months old child on 6.8.2021. At that time he was not at his home. When he came back, he came to know that the respondent nos. 5 to 9 have conspired together and took away his daughter-in-law and grandson. He stated that the F.I.R. was registered with the police in this regard vide Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 405 of 2021 on 01.09.2021 under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the police are not conducting the investigation in proper manner and the delay caused in investigation of the case has compelled him to seek remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition is totally misconceived. He contended that for an alleged occurrence which took place on 6.8.2021 an F.I.R. was registered on 01.09.2021. The delay of 25 days caused in submitting the written report has not been properly explained. The petitioner has stated in his written report that he informed the police that the delay in reporting the matter to the police was caused as he himself was trying to know the whereabouts of his missing daughter-in-law and grandson. He contended that the tenor of the F.I.R. itself would show that the alleged victim had voluntarily accompanied the accused persons who all are petitioner's agnates. He contended that even though the police have not submitted their report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has rushed to this Court claiming that investigation is not being done in a proper manner.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record.

5. Apart from the delay caused in registration of the F.I.R., there is yet another reason for us not to entertain the instant application in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The contents of the F.I.R. itself would suggest that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner voluntarily went together with respondent nos. 5 to 9 on 06.08.2021. The F.I.R. would also make it evident that the informant himself was not sure about the involvement of the accused persons in abduction of his daughter-in-law. Moreover, the husband of the alleged victim, whom he claims to be his adopted son has been impleaded as a respondent in this case. Off late, when the F.I.R. has been registered, he has named respondent nos. 5 to 9 as the persons involved in the case. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation made in the F.I.R. is a matter which can be looked into by the police, who are statutorily required to investigate the case and come to a logical conclusion and submit a report before the Court under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. It is well settled principle of law that at the stage of investigation the court has no role to play. At this stage, the court cannot come to a finding that the respondent nos. 5 to 9 are the persons involved in the case. The outcome of the investigation would be known only after the investigation is complete. Mere oral assertion by the petitioner, without there being any cogent proof that investigation is not being conducted properly, would not give right to the petitioner to approach the Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus.

7. In Amar Nath Chaubey Vs. Union of India (SLP (Cr.) no. 6951 of 2018) by order dated 14th December