Disposed

Prahlad Saini v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC11 May 2017CWP/1002/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court monitored investigation progress into a kidnapping case (FIR under IPC 363). Finding no success in locating the missing child but satisfied with procedural steps, the Court closed proceedings after issuing directions for continued linkage with NCRB and anti-trafficking units, reserving liberty to revive the petition.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings closed; liberty reserved to revive the petition subsequently if necessary.

Prahlad Saini Vs State of Hp — Child Custody and Guardianship | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1002 of 2016

¶3

Date of Decision : 11.5.2017

¶4

Prahlad Saini ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice

¶8

Petitioner approached this Court primarily for the following relief:

¶9

“That the Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued to the respondents to transfer the case of the petitioner having FIR No.32/14 dated 13/03/2014 U/s 363 of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. to the Central Beauro of Investigation for the further and proper investigation of the case.”

¶10

Record reveals that since 18.5.2016, this

¶11

Court, otherwise, has been monitoring the progress made

¶12

…2…

¶13

in the investigation. In fact, on 24.8.2016, the Court directed the Special Investigating Team, so constituted by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to file affidavit on the following terms:

¶14

“i) Whether opinion as granted to the Investigating Agency to present the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.).

¶15

ii) Whether the Investigating Agency has followed the mandate of Sections 82 and 173 of the Cr.P.C.

¶16

iii) Whether the final report was also presented against the accused who was/were absconding or otherwise.

¶17

iv) Whether the Judicial Magistrate and the trial Court have passed orders in terms of Sections 207 and 299 of the Cr.P.C., if yes, copies be made available.

¶18

v) Whether the State has so far taken steps to question the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge.”

¶19

Pursuant thereto, a detailed affidavit stands

¶20

filed by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. We are satisfied with the progress made in the case. Regretfully, whereabouts of the missing child (name withheld) could not be made known, despite best efforts put in by the State CID and Crime Branch.

¶21

At this point of time, we close the present proceedings, reserving liberty to the petitioner to revive

¶22

…3…

¶23

the same, if so required and desired, subsequently, with the following directions:

¶24

(a) The Special Investigating Team, so constituted, shall continue to ascertain whereabouts of the missing child.

¶25

(b) Liaison shall be made with the National Crime Records Bureau.

¶26

¶27

(d) Narco tests of the suspects be also got conducted, in accordance with law.

¶28

Writ petition stands disposed of, so also

¶29

pending application(s), if any.

¶30

( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice

¶31

May 11, 2017 (sd)

¶32

( Sandeep Sharma ), Judge.

Prahlad Saini v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Saini v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Gurdial Pal

Ms Naresh Tour and Travel Vs Uco Bank

Ms Divyang Associates(P) Ltd. Vs Hp.State Indu.Development Corpn.

Ms Hp Board of School Education Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Ravinder Sharma Vs Ms Dainik Jagran Parkashan Ltd.

Jan Jagran Avam Vikas Sanstha Vs State of Hp