Rekha vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

A complaint was filed by petitioner Mrs. Rekha before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh alleging commission of offence punishable u/s 302, 201 and 120-B IPC against respondent No. 4 Mr. Bhagirath and respondent No. 5 Mrs. Sunita, wife of Mr. Bhagirath. As per the complaint, the alleged accused persons committed murder of Ms. Manju, sister of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 Mrs. Sunita. The complaint aforesaid was sent for investigation to the police station Hanumangarh Junction on 19.06.2010. A negative final report was filed before the court with a conclusion that no offence as alleged took place. A protest petition, thus, was filed and while considering that, learned Judicial Magistrate on 09.07.2012 directed the investigating agency to make further investigation by taking into consideration certain other material indicated in the complaint. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner preferred this habeas corpus petition before this court on 08.01.2013 with assertion that Ms. Manju could have been illegally detained by respondent No. 4 Mr. Bhagirath and his wife respondent No. 4 Mrs. Sunita.

After service of notice issued by this court in the habeas corpus petition, an another report was filed by the investigating agency before the court competent on 15.04.2013 with a conclusion that no offence as alleged was committed by the respondents No. 4 and 5. This court after examining all facts of the case, deemed it appropriate to transfer the investigation of the case to C.I.D. (Crime Branch), Jaipur under an order dated 03.05.2013. In pursuant thereto, further investigation is made by the C.I.D. (Crime Branch).

From perusal of the facts averred in the progress report as well as the case diary, we are satisfied that the investigating agency is making adequate efforts to unfold the mystery. Suffice to mention that an unidentified dead body of a female was found at Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that was apprehended as dead body of missing person Ms. Manju. Mr. Bhagirath, respondent No. 4 and Mrs. Rekha, petitioner, were taken to Meerut to identity the body. Mr. Bhatigarh identified the same as of Ms. Manju, but the petitioner failed to identity the same on the count that Ms. Manju was not having any tattoo on her body, but was having a steel rod in her spine, reference of which was not given in the postmortem report. The investigating agency is yet making further efforts to recover Ms. Manju.

Looking to the facts noticed above, we do not find any just reason now to continue this habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, the same is disposed of by directing the respondent State to continue its efforts to recover Ms. Manju alive or dead, as the case may be, and to submit its report of investigation to the court, where the complaint was filed by Mrs. Rekha.