Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the purpose of issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus in connection with production of body of Gulab, husband of the petitioner, and releasing the same; taken penal action by way of writ of mandamus as regards responsible persons for fake encounter and also compensation of Rs.5 lacs or whatever sum is to be fixed by the High Court along with incidental prayers. As because this court was sitting in criminal writ jurisdiction in which the writ of habeas corpus is not assigned, the court was about to release the matter when Mr. Yogesh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not press relief as regards writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, such prayer is deleted from the writ petition. The remaining prayers are about taking penal action against the responsible person and payment of compensation.
(2.) Mr. Neeraj Kant Verma, learned A.G.A., contended before this court that there was no occasion of any encounter. Exchange of fire was made in between the police and criminals as a result whereof the death occurred. By relying upon the counter affidavit he said that after the encounter and post mortem, the family members were informed but they did not turn up to collect the body. Accordingly the same was cremated as per Hindu rights on the State expenses. He further contended that the petitioner's husband had the criminal history, which will be available from the paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit and the annexures. Learned A.G.A. further contended that a final report has been filed before the appropriate court of Magistrate, which was also accepted by such court.
(3.) Mr. Agrawal relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181, Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others and said that in the cases of writ petition, unlike the civil suit, there should be pleadings of evidence about the availability of post mortem, final report etc.;