Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

High Court Directs Continued Efforts in Tracing Missing Minor, Stresses on Monthly Status Reports - Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment concerning a habeas corpus petition, the Delhi High Court, on January 25, 2024, ordered the continuation of diligent efforts to trace a missing 15-year-old girl. The case, titled Sangita Morya Versus State (W.P.(CRL) 961/2022), was presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain.

The petitioner, Sangita Morya, approached the court seeking help in finding her minor daughter, Ms. ‘S’, who went missing under mysterious circumstances on January 18, 2022. The petitioner expressed suspicion over her neighbor, Vishal, aged 30, who has since been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the court's observation, it was noted, "In light of the aforesaid discussion, since all possible efforts to trace the missing girl have been made, we hereby dispose of the present writ petition." This emphasizes the court's acknowledgment of the efforts made by the police in this troubling situation.

Further elaborating on the steps to be taken, the court directed, "The concerned police officials to file a monthly status report before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate." The directive aims to ensure continued and focused efforts in the investigation. The court also ordered that "if any clue is found about the minor daughter of the petitioner, the same shall be communicated to her and if she is rescued, she be produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate."

This judgment highlights the High Court's commitment to the safety and well-being of minors and underscores the importance of persistent efforts in missing person cases. The case, however, remains a matter of deep concern, with the whereabouts of the young girl still unknown.

The petitioner was not represented by any advocate, while the State was represented by Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.), along with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya, and Mr. Shivesh Kaushik.

Date of Decision: 25th January 2024

SANGITA MORYA VS STATE

 

Latest Legal News