Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Every Effort Must be Made to Trace the Missing - Delhi High Court in Habeas Corpus

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment on a habeas corpus petition, emphasized the importance of persistent and effective police action in cases of missing children. The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur, highlighted the duty of the police in situations where a minor's whereabouts are unknown.

The case involved a 14-year-old girl who went missing from Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital in 2018. Despite the availability of CCTV footage showing the girl being harassed by a known individual, Janu, and his cousin Ankit, the police were initially hesitant to file an FIR. It was only after the intervention of the Delhi Commission for Women that an FIR was registered.

In a significant observation, the court stated, "In cases involving missing children, every effort must be made to trace the child. The initial reluctance of the police in such serious matters is unacceptable." This statement underscores the court's stance on the urgency and seriousness required in handling cases of missing minors.

Janu and Ankit confessed to the kidnapping, yet the police failed to trace the girl. The High Court, acknowledging the ongoing investigation, disposed of the petition but mandated the police to file quarterly status reports on their progress to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role law enforcement plays in protecting the most vulnerable members of society. The court's directive for continuous vigilance in unresolved cases sets a precedent for future investigations involving missing children.

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Arbaaz Khan and Mr. Shalanki Prasad, while the respondent, the State (NCT of Delhi), was represented by Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.), with Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Krumar Arya, and Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, along with ACP/AHTU/Crime and SI Gunjan Singh AHTU/Crime Branch.

Date of Decision: November 10, 2023

SHIVDEVI VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)       

Latest Legal News