THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.39273 OF 2017

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2^nd respondent in not registering on the complaint dated 03.10.2017 lodged by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court apart from violation of Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently direct the respondents to register a crime on the complaint dated 03.10.2017 lodged by the petitioner and investigate into the matter by following due process of

law, and to pass...”

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Bhaskar Kakunoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the representation dated 03.10.2017, submitted to the concerned police authorities, no First Information Report (“FIR”) has been registered as to missing of a person. It is contended that the petitioner’s grievance pertains to the alleged inaction of the respondent police in failing to register and investigate a cognizable offence. Hence, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent police authorities for registration of a crime and for conducting an investigation in accordance

with law.

3.2. The petitioner relies upon the judgments of the High Court of Delhi in Khushi Sharma v. Union of India & Others and of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 5715 of 2024, decided on 11.03.2024, contending that where a missing person is involved, the Court has directed the concerned police authorities to register a case and conduct appropriate investigation. The petitioner seeks a similar direction in the present matter.

4.1. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that upon receipt of the petitioner’s representation, a General Diary (GD) entry was duly made. It is further stated that upon perusal of the petitioner’s representation, it was observed that the alleged missing person in deed died as per the report itself and that death had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Punjab. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to approach the jurisdictional police authorities in Punjab for redressal. Additionally, an official communication was made to the police authorities in Punjab informing them of the alleged death. However, as the petitioner’s representation did not disclose any prima facie or substantial material indicative of a cognizable offence, no further steps were taken towards registration of a crime.

4.2. It is also submitted that, as per the latest report received from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma Police Station, an enquiry was made with one Syed Waseem Akram, son of Syed Mahboob (the petitioner herein). During the enquiry, it was stated that his maternal uncle had been residing in the State of Punjab since 2015, where he owned certain properties and used to visit frequently. The petitioner himself was employed in Saudi Arabia from 2015 to 2017. In late 2016, one Syed Jameel, a friend of the petitioner, received a call from the Punjab Police informing him of the death of the petitioner’s maternal uncle. The petitioner subsequently visited Punjab, but his efforts to obtain the death certificate from the associates of the deceased were unsuccessful. Acting upon legal advice, the petitioner thereafter approached this Court.

4.3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home further submits that if the petitioner remains aggrieved, he has adequate statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which he must first