JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. We have heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the respondents.
2. The petitioner Kali Charan Verma is the father of one Narendra Singh, who allegedly went to Jyotiba Phule Nagar, leaving his house in the morning of 7.11.2000 but did not come back till late night. On enquiry, the petitioner and his daughter-in-law received information from some person of neighbourhood that Narendra Singh was taken in police custody by the police of P.S. Gairaula. Narendra Singh's wife filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 17257 of 2001 in which the following order was passed on 1.2.2002:
Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband is missing from 7.11.2000 and her apprehension is that he has been taken away by the police of police station Gajraula, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar and possibly killed in a false encounter.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the concerned authority stating that they have not taken the petitioner's husband.
We dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the S.P. Jyotiba Phule Nagar to get the matter thoroughly investigated and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
3. Now through this writ petition, a prayer has been made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Narendra Singh before this Court and to submit a detailed investigation report h connection with the investigation conducted in compliance of this Court's order dated 1.2.2002 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) referred to above. A compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs has also been claimed from the respondents.
4. The grievance of the petitioner, as argued by his learned Counsel, is that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 1.2.2002, he sent detailed representations/reminders addressed to respondent No. 3, demanding the investigation report but to no effect. His repeated representations/reminders from 23.2.2002 to 28.9.2005 did not bear any fruit. Till date, respondent No. 3, S.P. Jyotiba Phule Nagar has not furnished the investigation report regarding any investigation conducted in connection with his missing son Narendra Singh and he (petitioner) apprehends that he has been killed in fake encounter.
5. Shri Ashok Kumar Pahwa, Deputy S.P. (CO. Dhanaura) District Jyotiba Phule Nagar has filed a counter affidavit, in paragraph No. 3 whereof it is stated that in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 1.2.2002, an F.I.R. at case crime No. 234 of 2002 under Section 364 I.P.C. was registered by Virendra Singh against the then police of P.S. Gajraula. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit says that after-registration of the case, the matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter it was transferred to C.B. CID. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit is also relevant which reads as under:
6. That during investigation CB CID has also recorded the statement of Kali Charan (petitioner), father of Narendra Singh who in his statement has stated that his son Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh who are accused in case crime No. 324/95 under Section 302 I.P.C. and in this case they are still absconding. Statement of Kali Charan is part of CD-4 dated 15.9.03 and if required the same will be produced before this Hon'ble Court.
6. In conclusion, it is averred in paragraph 7 of the said counter affidavit that the F.I.R. of case crime No. 234 of-2002 under Section 364 I.P.C. was thoroughly investigated and the Investigating Officer of the case did not find any evidence against the police personnel of P.S. Gajrjaula and submitted the final report.
7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner making reply in paragraph 5.to the contents of paragraphs No. 6,7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, designating the same to be incorrect, but nothing has been stated about the involvement of Narendra Singh as accused in Case Crime No. 324 of 1995, under Section 302 I.P.C, referred to in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the Dy. S.P. Ashok Kumar Pahwa.
8. On a careful consideration, we are in judgment that the petitioner has not at all come with clean hands. His son Narendra Singh is an absconder in a murder case of 1995. The order dated 1.2.2002 passed by this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 17257 of 2001, filed by the wife of Narendra Singh has been complied with by the respondents, inasmuch as, a case under Section 364 I.P.C. was registered and investigated in which final report has been submitted. It has consistently been the case of the respondents that Narendra Singh was not at all taken in police custody. The said Narendra Singh not being in custody of the police, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is misconceived. Its filing in true sense of the term, is abuse of the process of law. Instead of reconciling with the reality, the petitioner's father had the temerity of filing this second frivolous writ petition, seemingly to justify and sanctify the long absconding of Narendra Singh and to unnecessarily embarrass the local police to create pressure so as to dissuade from making efforts to arrest Narendra Singh, who is absconding.
9. We see no merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.