Laxmi Devi v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LAXMI DEVI ... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.Amit Alok, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .... Respondent Represented by:

Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with Insp. Radhey Shyam and SI Jasmer Singh, PS Jahangir Puri

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 20.08.2018 By this petition the petitioner seeks registration of FIR and search of her missing daughter.

An information was given by the petitioner at PS Jahangir Puri on 12th July, 2018 at about 11.40 A.M. about her missing daughter Poonam, aged 21 years, which was recorded vide DD No.21A. Efforts to trace the missing girl Poonam were made on the ZIPNET, Missing Persons Squad of Delhi Police was informed and messages were sent throughout the country. Inquiry about the missing girl Poonam was made from Smt.Mista who stated that family of the petitioner came to 'G' Block about three years ago. Her daughter Radhika developed intimacy with the missing girl Poonam.

In November, 2016 her daughter Radhika went to market with Poonam to buy wedding suit for Poonam whose marriage was to be held. She came back late at night with Ashu, elder brother of Poonam. Since then, they were not having good relation with the petitioner. She further stated that she was also not happy with her daughter Radhika who used to speak to Poonam despite instructions of her parents not to speak to Poonam. On 4th July, 2018 her son found Radhika talking to Poonam and scolded her. Thereafter, on 4th July, 2018 at about 1.30 P.M., Radhika went missing along with Poonam. Later, Radhika returned back but the petitioner's daughter Poonam did not return back. Hence, she got registered FIR No.323/2018 under Section 365 IPC. Inquiries were also made from Radhika and Pawan, a suspect.

On 27th July, 2018, on the basis of an information received, surveillance in Jahangir Puri Market was kept and on 28th July, 2018, Poonam was found. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded wherein she stated that she had gone with Radhika of her own free will and both were living independently, though together. Thereafter, Radhika came back to her house without telling Poonam and after a few days, she also came back.

Today again, learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the statement of Poonam was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she left the home after one hour and her whereabouts are not traceable. Since FIR has already been registered on the complaint of the petitioner and from the conduct of Poonam, who is a major, it is apparent that she is going on her own free will and does not want to stay with the petitioner, no further orders are called for from this Court in the present

case.

The petition is dismissed.

AUGUST 20, 2018 MUKTA GUPTA, J.

'rk'