Dismissed

Mohammed Javed, v. Circle Inspector of Police

Telangana HC22 Feb 2012WP/1067/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a brother seeking release of his sister Tahera Begum, whom he alleged was kidnapped. The court found the detenu was a major (aged 19) who voluntarily left her home to marry her boyfriend and was traced by the police. As she was produced before the Municipal Magistrate after coercive custody was removed, the writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as the detenu is traced and produced before the Judicial Magistrate; no further orders passed.

Mohammed Javed, Vs Circle Inspector of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

W.P. No. 1067 of 2012

¶3

O r d e r: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.)

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to grant Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to produce his minor sister, namely Tahera Begum, who is said to be in the illegal detention of respondent No.6 and set her at liberty forthwith.

¶5

The petitioner states that his parents and his sister are living with him at Bhainsa. While so, on 22.11.2011, his sister went out and did not return, and on enquiries, he came to know that respondent No.6, namely Suthrave Prabhaker Rangare, has kidnapped his sister from Bhainsa, and immediately, he lodged a complaint, and basing on his complaint, respondent No.1, namely Inspector of Police, Bhainsa, registered a case in Crime No.125 of 2011. When no action was taken to trace his sister, his community people met respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and from them, he came to know that his sister is in illegal detention of respondent No.6. He further states that his sister called him over phone on 12.01.2012 and informed him that she is in Shahada, Nandurbar District, Maharashtra State, and that some unknown persons and Bhainsa police, brought her there and took her signatures on some papers by threatening that she would be killed if she goes to Bhainsa and that it would be in her interest if she lives with respondent No.6. The petitioner states that even though respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are having knowledge about the whereabouts of his sister and respondent No.6, they have not taken any action to bring back his sister back to Bhainsa and handover her to them, and therefore, he is

¶6

compelled to file the present writ petition.

¶7

Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, they registered a case in Crime No. 125 of 2011, and thereafter, the Investigating Officer took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited Government Primary School No.1, Urdu Medium, Bhainsa, where the detenu studied. Upon verification of the school record, found that the date of the birth of the alleged detenu is 01.06.1992 and that as on the date of alleged kidnap, she is aged about 20 years and a major. That the Investigating Officer examined the family members, friends and relatives of respondent No.6, but could not secure any useful information.

¶8

While so, the brother of respondent No.6, namely Suthrave Sanjeev, lodged a complaint with them stating that his brother, namely Suthrave Prabhakar Rangare is missing since 22.11.2011 and requested to take necessary steps to trace his brother. He also furnished the photograph and descriptive particulars of respondent No.6. Based on his complaint, a case of “man missing” in Crime No. 121 of 2011 was registered. Thereafter, the Investigation Officer, issued look out notice and sent them to all the police stations in the State as well as neighbouring police stations in Maharashtra. He also formed a special team comprising ASI 75 and HC 1443 to trace the whereabouts of the alleged detenu and respondent No.6. The special team visited the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, but could not trace the whereabouts of respondent No.6.

¶9

While so, on 31.12.2011, he received credible information about the presence of the alleged detenu and respondent No.6 at Shahada town of Nandurbar district of Mahrashtra State. Immediately, he along with a team visited Shahada Police Station, where the alleged detenu

¶10

and respondent No.6 were present. That he examined the alleged detenu and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The alleged detenu stated that she is a major, that she is in love with respondent No.6 since the last four years, and that her parents performed her engagement with some other person and as they were trying to perform her marriage with the said person, she left her house and went along with respondent No.6, and that they both got married at Nasik, Maharashtra. She also produced a photograph of the marriage. The alleged detenu further stated that she is not willing to go to Bhainsa because there is threat to their life from their respective parents and relatives, and that she was not kidnapped by respondent No.6 as alleged by her parents.

¶11

He further stated that he also examined respondent No.6 and recorded his statement in connection with Crime No. 121 of 2011. The statement of respondent No.6 corroborated with the statement of the alleged detenu. That he videographed the statements. Thereafter, he made a requisition before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, for recording the statement of the alleged detenu. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the alleged detenu, which corroborated with her statement given to police. The statement of the alleged detenu was kept in a sealed cover and sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa, Adilabad, and from there they obtained certified copy of statement of the alleged detenu, recorded in Marathi.

¶12

Along with the counter, respondent No.1 inter alia, filed the certified copies of the statements in Marathi along with English translations thereof, given by her to him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, Nandurbar

¶13

District, Maharashtra, and the VCD of the statement given by the detenu to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.6 kidnapped the alleged detenu who is a minor, and the alleged marriage, is not at all a marriage. The statement, said to have been given by the alleged detenu before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, cannot be treated as a statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., because of the presence of respondent No.1 and his subordinates. Therefore, no credence can be placed on the said statements, which were recorded by exerting force. He further submitted that respondent No.1 having come to know that the alleged detenu and respondent No.6 were at Shahada, and having went there, instead of producing them before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, Nandurbar district, Maharashtra, ought to have produced the alleged detenu either before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa or before this Court.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General submitted that the alleged detenu is a major. She married respondent No.6 at Nasik, and because of threat to her life in the hands of her parents, she is not willing to come to Bhainsa. Respondent No.1 came to know that the alleged detenu was living with respondent No.6 at Shahada, and immediately he along with his staff went there, and with the help of Shahada police, produced the alleged detenu before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, Nandurbar district, Maharashtra, who recorded the statement of the alleged detenu, and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa, in a sealed cover, certified copies of which are filed. She submitted that at present, the whereabouts of the alleged detenu and respondent No.6 are not

¶16

known.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and perused the material papers produced by her. None appeared for respondent No.6.

¶18

Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner that his sister was kidnapped by respondent No.6, respondent No.1 registered a case in Crime No. Crime No.125 of 2011 and took up investigation. Likewise, based on the complaint lodged by the brother of respondent No.6, he registered a case in Crime No. 121 of 2011 and took up investigation. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 and his men made efforts to trace the alleged detenu and respondent No.6 but in vain. While so, on 31.12.2011, respondent No.1 came to know that the alleged detenu and respondent No. 6 were living at Shahada, Nandurbar district, Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 along with his team went to Shahada, and examined the alleged detenu and respondent No.6 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at Shahada Police Station. He has also videographed the statement given by the detenue to the police. Thereafter, he produced the alleged detenu before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, Nandurbar, Maharashtra.

¶19

The learned Magistrate, Shahada, before recording the statement of the detenu noted that the alleged detenu, Tahera Begum Mohammed Qasim, aged about 19 years R/o Bhainsa, Adilabad, was produced before him by the Inspector of Police, Shri Sanjeev Rao, for having her statement recorded as per Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. Before examining and recording her statement, on a query put by him, the detenu stated that she can understand and speak only Hindi language. Then he recorded the statement of the

¶20

detenu, and made an endorsement that there was no policeman in the Court in any place when the proceeding could be heard or seen and that the alleged detenu who studied upto 7^th standard can understand and speak Hindi language, and that she is making the statement voluntarily and on of her own free will, recorded the statement of the alleged detenu on 31.12.2011, and sent them in a sealed cover to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa. This is evident from the certified copy of the statement of the alleged detenu, filed by respondent No.1 after obtaining it from the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa.

¶21

In her statement to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, the alleged detenu stated that she studied upto 7^th standard, that her date of birth is 01.06.1992, that she lives with her parent at Owaisinagar, that she knows respondent No.6 who runs a kirana shop in front of her house. That she is in love with respondent No.6 for the last four years, and that her parents who came to know about their love affair, warned her. Thereafter, they performed her engagement with one Iliyas against her wish. That fifteen days after the engagement, she asked respondent No.6 to take her out of Bahinsa, and accordingly, both of them left Bahinsa on 22.11.2011. That first they went to Aurangabad and stayed there for few days, and from there, they went to Naik and got married. That they are residing at Shahada since 15 days, that she willingly married respondent No.6 and living with him and that respondent No.6 did not kidnap and that no one threatened her, and that her father had lodged a false case in Bhainsa Police Station alleging that respondent No.6 kidnapped her. That she does not want to go to Bhainsa as there is threat to their life from her family members as also the family members of respondent No.6 and also from Bhainsa people.

¶22

We have also viewed the VCD of the statement of the alleged detenu, recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The alleged detenu gave the statement voluntarily and on her own free will. She did not appear to be giving the statement under force or any duress, much less the police. Having viewed the VCD, and considering the statements made by the detenu before the police as also the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, we are of the considered opinion that there was no threat or coercion on the alleged detenu to give statement. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that no credence can be placed on the statements recorded by the police and the learned Magistrate, cannot be accepted.

¶23

Though the counsel for the petitioner contended that the detenu is a minor and is aged only 17 years, the fact remains, as per the statement of the detenu, given to the police as also the learned Magistrate, Shahada, her age is 19 years. The Bonafide and Conduct Certificate, issued by the Head Mistress, Government Primary School No.1, Bhainsa, where the detenu is said to have studies, shows her date of birth as 01.06.1992, which indicates that she is more than 19 years, and even the ration card, which was issued on 29.08.2005, shows the age of the detenu as 15 years, which means now she is above 19 years. Hence, it cannot be said that the detenu is a minor.

¶24

The contention of the petitioner that the detenu is in illegal custody of respondent No.6 also cannot be accepted. The detenu herself, has stated that she was not kidnapped by respondent No.6 and that she was in love with respondent No.6 and as her parents were making attempts to get her married to some other person against her will and also performed her betrothal, she requested respondent No.6 to take her out of Bhainsa, and on her request, both of them came out of Bhainsa and got married at Nasik. Since the alleged detenu

¶25

was traced at Shahada Town, and as she expressed her unwillingness to go to Bhainsa because of threat from her parents and also from the parents of respondent No.6, and considering the fact that both the detenu and respondent No.6 belong to different religious communities, to avoid law and order problem, respondent No.1 instead of bringing and producing the alleged detenu before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa, where a case for her kidnap is pending, felt it appropriate to produce her before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, and as such, no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.1 in not producing the alleged detenu either before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa or before this Court.

¶26

Since the alleged detenu is traced, as is evident from the material placed before the Court, and considering the scope of Writ of Habeas Corpus, which is to produce the body of the person in the Court, and as the alleged detenu, upon being traced was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shahada, who had recorded her statement after satisfying for himself that there is no coercion on the alleged detenu to give statement, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs.

¶27

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶28

_____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J.

¶29

Dated: 22^nd February, 2012 KSR

Mohammed Javed, v. Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Javed, v. Circle Inspector of Police

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

Narenderakumar Tripati Vs The Commissioner of Police

Bibi Farida Vs The Principlal Secretary

The State of a.P., Vs Tanuku Janaki

Smt.Deepika kasturi Vs The State of Ap., rep.by its PRincipal Secretary

M. Chegamma Vs The Superintendent of Police

Singam Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary