JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to recover and produce her daughter and release her in her favour.

2. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner/Manju Devi has lodged Nawkothi P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018 registered on 10.09.2018 against two named accused persons, namely, Dyanand Chaudhary and Subodh Kumar Chaudhary for the offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, as made in the FIR, the daughter of the informant has been missing since 11:00 PM on 01.09.2018. It is further stated in the FIR that her daughter used to sit in the house of neighbor Anju Devi. She has also expressed suspicion against the named accused persons Dyanand Chaudhary and Subodh Kumar Chaudhary. Her daughter is having a mobile bearing no. 9162289307 which is being found closed and the accused has mobile bearing no. 7782814007 which is in use. It is also alleged that from one mobile bearing no. 9815526083, threat is extended to the informant and message is also sent to mobile no. 9534990356. Hence, the informant has requested the police to search her daughter and take appropriate action.

4. In reply to the writ petition, the police authorities have stated that all efforts were taken to recover the missing daughter of the informant, but despite best effort of the police, the missing girl could not be recovered. However, charge-sheet has been submitted against the FIR named accused persons and supplementary investigation is still going on. The police has taken several steps to trace the missing girl like giving advertisement in media, pamphlet containing photograph of missing girl having been pasted on the several bus stands, railway stations and other public places. CIG publication was also done and the report regarding the missing girl was also sent to District Missing Unit, Special Juvenile Unit and Prevention of Human Trafficking Unit etc., But the missing girl is still traceless.

5. On the other hand, the petitioner states that despite passage of seven years since lodging of FIR, the police has not recovered the victim girl. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

6. From the material on record, it clearly transpires that there is no allegation of any illegal confinement by the state authorities or even by private individuals. The daughter of the informant/petitioner has been missing and the Petitioner has suspicion that her daughter has been kidnapped by the persons named in the FIR. Subsequent to lodging of the FIR, several steps have been taken by the police authorities to trace the missing girl and even the charge-sheet has been submitted against the FIR named accused persons, namely, Dyanand Chaudhary and Subodh Kumar Chaudhary and they are facing trial and supplementary investigation is still going on to trace the victim girl.

7. As such, grievance of the petitioner is that the police is not doing proper investigation, because search and recovery of the victim of any offence is part of investigation. Had there been any clear case established by the petitioner regarding illegal confinement of the victim by state authorities or any individuals, writ of habeas corpus could have been issued. However, there is no such case of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved with improper investigation on account of failure of the police to recover the victim girl despite passage of seven years.

8. Here I find that efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of moving appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. Section 156(3) Cr.PC/ 175(3) B.N.S.S. read with Section 97 Cr.PC/Section 100 B.N.S.S. are wide enough covering the power of the Jurisdictional Magistrate to direct the Officer-in- charge of concerned police station to take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring proper investigation including