JUDGMENT :

1. Counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nagendra Srivastava and Sri G.P. Singh represents State-respondents.

3. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Ramrati, the mother of the corpus with the following prayer :

“(i) Issue a habeas corpus writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus namely Kanya Devi d/o Harmunji Lal before this Hon'ble Court and setting her at liberty to go anywhere where she wants.

(ii) Issue any other suitable habeas corpus order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Allow this habeas corpus writ petition in favour of the petitioner.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate on 18.11.2018 for registering the F.I.R. against the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 namely Sanjay Kumar, Madhu and Arvind, an F.I.R. was lodged on 13.01.2020, under Sections 498A, 364 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against them at Police Station Shivkuti, District Prayagraj but neither the proceedings of the case was expedited nor the corpus was recovered. He further argued that respondent nos. 4 and 5 used to harass the petitioner-Kanya Devi and the petitioner had informed her mother in this regard. The petitioner had phoned her mother for help but her mother was not in a position to help her and after some days, respondent nos. 4 & 5 with the help of respondent no. 6 detained the petitioner. The respondent no. 6 and respondent no. 5 are live in relationship and respondent no. 5 is sister of respondent no. 4 and respondent nos. 5 & 6 are living in the house of respondent no. 4. It was further the case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer after registering the FIR had not taken any action against the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 nor given any information about recovery of the petitioner/corpus to her mother namely Ramrati. Thereafter, the mother of the corpus namely Ramrati filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7408 of 2020 before this Court and this Court disposed of the above writ petition vide order dated 06.10.2020, the same is reproduced herein below :

“Heard Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

This writ petition has been filed for seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent concerned to conduct fair investigation in pursuance of FIR dated 13.01.2020.

It is submitted that petitioner is an informant in the above case and despite approaching the authority concerned for fair investigation, no action whatsoever has been taken, an appropriate direction be issued for fair and expeditious investigation.

It is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 as reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 that in the event of unsatisfactory investigation, remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Tambe (supra) are quoted hereunder:

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be d