Mohandas Jaganath Narayankar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

13 wp 2558.19.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2558 of 2019 Mohandas Jaganath Narayankar .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors.

.....Respondents Mr. Shashikant P. Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 19th JUNE, 2019.

P. C. :

1.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions to investigate into a missing complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner and also seek other direction to record the statement of the complainant and to register an FIR.

2.

When the matter was listed on the last date of hearing, we had directed Ms.Shinde, learned APP to seek necessary instructions, since we have noticed that the daughter of the petitioner has addressed a letter dated 27th July, 2018 to the Talegaon Police Station wherein she has mentioned that she has already performed marriage with one Shri Deepak Kolap. By the said communication, she informed that she is happily residing with the said boy and do not intend to return back to her parents. A copy of the said letter along with photographs of the marriage was also forwarded to the petitioner.

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

13 wp 2558.19.doc 3.

Today, Ms. Shinde, learned APP, has tendered before us, the papers of investigation which contain the statement of the daughter of the petitioner recorded on 28th December, 2018. We have perused the said statement. In the said statement, she has categorically stated that she has solemnised the marriage with said Shri Deepak Kolam and she also mentioned that she had contacted her father. She has stated that on her own will she had accompanied Deepak Kolap, aged 19 years, resident of Pokhari, Ambegaon, District-Pune and, thereafter entered a marital relationship. She also expressed her desire to continue to stay with her husband.

4.

In light of the said statement, since the daughter of the petitioner is now traced and her whereabouts are known to the petitioner, and a statement made by Ms. Shinde, learned APP, that the daughter of the petitioner is about to deliver a child and at present she is staying with the petitioner, in such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant relief claimed by the petitioner which restricts to an investigation into the complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner to trace their daughter. There is no merit in the petition and in changed circumstances, the relief claimed cannot be granted. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. [SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2