The responsibility of police to conduct prompt, diligent, and transparent investigations is paramount, especially in cases of missing persons, ensuring public trust and justice.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

The present writ petition was initially filed by Tekni Devi W/o Sri Teklal Pandit (hereinafter referred as the original petitioner) for issuance of direction upon the respondents, particularly, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih (the respondent No.2) to take legal action against the named accused persons of Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 dated 07.05.2010 instituted for the offence under Sections 366(A)/34 of IPC as the accused persons were roaming freely in the locality and were even seen with the local police. Further prayer was made for taking necessary action to search the daughter of the original petitioner, who was allegedly kidnapped by the accused persons.

2. Subsequently, after the death of the original petitioner, her brother, namely, Bodhi Pandit S/o Hiraman Pandit (hereinafter referred to as the present petitioner) has been substituted as the petitioner.

3. In the present case, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae vide order dated 05.08.2022 to assist this Court.

4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae, and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted written notes of argument in the present case highlighting the following key points with respect to different counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents and the qualitative assessments of the same:

(i) The original petitioner, namely, Tekni Devi had lodged an FIR being Bagodar (Saria) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 on 07-05-2010 alleging that certain people belonging to her in-laws’ family had kidnapped her daughter, namely, Priti Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the victim girl) aged about 16 years, who was missing since 25.04.2010 and when the efforts to trace the victim girl did not make any headway, the original petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition for promptly conducting the investigation.

(ii) The respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit dated 10-02-2012 stating that after institution of the case, the investigation was taken up and the statements of various witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer. The statement of one Jageshwar Pandit, who happens to be the father-in-law of the informant, was recorded at Para 8 of the case diary from which it appeared that there was dispute regarding share in landed property of the witnesses resulting in institution of the case before the competent Court. Para 9 of the case diary was the statement of one Baijnath Ram, who had also stated about the dispute between the informant and accused persons with respect to share in the landed property. The said witness also stated that the victim girl was once caught having illicit relationship with her ‘Jija’. It was also stated that one of the accused persons, namely, Tulsi Pandit was asked by the victim girl to drop her at Chichaki Railway Station. Thereafter, he left her at the station and returned home. The other witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution. In course of investigation, the statement of the informant’s husband, namely, Teklal Pandit @ Tiko Pandit was recorded at Para 46 of the case diary in which it was stated by him that the informant had instituted a false case against his family members. He had also stated that perhaps the informant under conspiracy had sold his daughter somewhere. Th