Smt Nasra Praveen v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ORS

$~11 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ NASRA PRAVEEN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for State

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

O R D E R

% 17.05.2018 CRL.M.A.9503/2018

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

2. Notice. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State, accepts notice. The Petitioner has come before this Court seeking directions to the Respondents to produce her missing daughter, Rozi Praveen, aged about 20 years. Her grievance is that despite giving a complaint at PS Jamia Nagar way back on 11th July 2017, very little has been done by the police to act on her complaint.

3. On receipt of an advance copy of the petition, Sanjeev Kumar, Station House Officer ('SHO') of PS Jamia Nagar has filed a status report dated 17th May 2018. A perusal of the report shows that all that was done is to upload the complaint on the Zipnet on 11th July 2017 and give the information to the missing person squad on 16th August 2017. It appears that thereafter very little has been done. Even an FIR was registered only on 5th September 2017 under Section 365 IPC after the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 156 (3) Cr PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') and since she made specific allegations against one Sachin (Respondent No.4) who was also working in the same hospital as her daughter who was working there as a Receptionist.

4. Mr. Mehra informs the Court that after the present petition was filed, some more inquires were made. It transpires that Respondent No.4 also went missing around the same time and that this is a possible case of elopement.

5. The Court would like the DCP South East to himself personally inquire into the matter and inform the MM why, for nearly a year, nothing substantive was done by the police on the complaint of the Petitioner. He will personally supervise the further investigation and take comprehensive steps to act on the leads that may have emerged.

6. Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the status report filed before the learned MM before whom the Petitioner's complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr PC is pending.

7. Considering that the Petitioner's complaint is pending before the Court of Ms. Ankita Lal, learned MM, Saket Courts, the DCP concerned is directed to file all his future status reports under his own signature in the said Court. If nothing substantive emerges six months hereafter, it will be open to the Petitioner to revive the present petition.

8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

MAY 17, 2018 sr