Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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