- (1.) We have heard Sri Mahipal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has dragged her father, respondent no.4 to this Court with the prayer that she should be given protection by the State against her father as she feels threatened that her life would be in danger by the action of her father. The allegation, in short is, that the petitioner has become major, has a pan card and is working in a private firm and that her father is forcing her to get married to a stranger against her wishes. In this regard, the petitioner's father is threatening her and sometimes beats her up. The petitioner contends that in this regard, she moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the SSP), Meerut on 13.03.2015 bringing all these facts to his knowledge and, on her application, the SSP directed the Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as the SHO), Brahampuri to conduct an enquiry and ensure that no untoward incident happens. The petitioner contends that without making due enquiry, the SHO lodged a missing report on 14.03.2015 at the instance of her father presumably in retaliation to her application. This necessitated the petitioner to rush to this Court in filing this writ petition.
(3.) By our order dated 23.03.2015, we had directed the SSP to file a counter affidavit indicating as to why a missing report was lodged when the petitioner was present before him on 13.03.2015. The counter affidavit filed by the SSP indicates that the petitioner had approached her on 13.03.2015 and on her application, had directed the SHO to investigate and ensure that no untoward incident takes place. The counter affidavit further reveals that on the father's application, a missing report was lodged on 14.03.2015. Unfortunately, the counter affidavit does not reveal as to what investigation was done on the petitioner's application. It is apparently clear that the SHO did not make the relevant and desired investigation on the petitioner's application, but proceeded on the father's application. This is some what strange and undesirable. The police is required to take an independent and impartial stand.;