Ram Kumar v. State

CRWP No.367 of 2016 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP No.367 of 2016 DATE OF DECISION:-13.11.2018 RAM KUMAR ...PETITIONER...

V.

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT...

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present:

Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harpreet Multani, AAG, Punjab.

***** RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Status report dated 08.10.2018 in the shape of affidavit of ASI Paramjit Singh, Police Station Bakhshiwala, District Patiala in compliance to the order dated 24.09.2018 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Be tagged at appropriate place. It speaks as under:- After registration of FIR, a wireless message (R-2/T) was sent to all the SHOs of the State of Punjab by the SHO, Police Station Bakhshiwala on 31.08.2018, regarding missing of Mukesh Kumar son of the petitioner. Simultaneously, information regarding missing person was also sent (Shorogoga) vide No.1314/5-A dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure R3/T). A copy of the FIR and Shorogoga was also sent to Crime Record Office Branch office of SSP, Patiala for publication in Gazette. That apart, publication about missing of Mukesh Kumar was effected in the "Dainik Bhaskaran" News Paper dated 08.09.2018 (Annexure R-4/T). The SONIKA 2018.11.21 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh description of Mukesh Kumar given by the petitioner was quite distinct

CRWP No.367 of 2016 --2-- and did not tally with Raju, which the petitioner claims to be his son, inasmuch as, Mukesh Kumar being dumb was unable to speak, whereas Raju can speak and fluent in speaking Punjabi. As per photograph of Mukesh Kumar (Annexure R-8), he had a fair complexion with small lips, whereas, as per photographs of Raju (Annexure R-6), he is a dark complexion, having heavy lips with different hairstyle. The features of both Raju and Mukesh Kumar are quite different from each other. Earlier investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police City-II, Patiala. He submitted his inquiry report No. 902/C/DSP City-2 09.11.2015. On 28/29.09.2018, Junctions of Railway Station Bathinda, Barnala and Sangrur were visited, besides various other places and intensive inquiries were made about the whereabouts of Mukesh Kumar, but no clues has been found till date. Further efforts are being made to trace out the whereabouts of the missing son of the petitioner.

Considering the above reply and efforts made by the investigating officer, there is no justification to continue the instant petition. The same is disposed of with the direction to the Police to carry on search to trace out the missing son (Mukesh Kumar) of the petitioner with direction to him to inform the concerned investigating officer, in case, he comes across some clue of his missing son. 13.11.2018 (RAMENDRA JAIN) sonika JUDGE whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No whether reportable:

Yes/No SONIKA 2018.11.21 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh