K.K.SRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) SMT . Chander Kala wife of Devi Dass, resident of Basu Gate Matak Majri in front of School No. 1 and House No. B-1075, Karnal lodged F.I.R. No. 424 dated 8.7.1995 at Police Station City Karnal alleging that her daughter named Draupdi was abducted by Shivani, Dr. Rana and Surajmal Constable. The occurrence, according to the F.I.R., took place on 4.7.1995 at 1.00 p.m. when her friend Shivani called her from the house of the petitioner and took her. She came back at about 3.30 p.m. and went to her house at 5.30 p.m. Thereafter, the daughter of the petitioner did not return home. The petitioner alleged that her daughter was working in the Karnal Congress Party Office and also in the personal office of the Deputy Minister Excise and Taxation Jai Parkash Gupta at Karnal. She further mentioned that the enquiries revealed that constable Surajmal of Police Post Pucca Pul, Madhuban was responsible for the abduction of Draupdi. The petitioner made several representations regarding the action to be taken by the local police to recover her daughter Draupdi. She also made an application before the D.I.G. Rohtak Range on 19.7.1995 and ultimately approached by means of an application the Chief Minister Haryana. Since the Police did not take any action in the matter she filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the investigations of the aforesaid case may be ordered to be handed over to the C.B.I. so that her daughter may be traced out or at least whereabouts of her daughter may be made known. She has expressed the apprehension that due to the lapse of time all the clues leading to the persons involved in the abduction of Draupdi might be lost and Draupdi night be murdered or kept in illegal confinement and custody of her abductors.
(2.) NOTICES of the petition were issued to the respondent-State of Haryana through Secretary, Home, D.I.G. Rohtak Range, Rohtak, Director General of Police, Haryana, respondent No. 1 to 3 only. Notice was not issued to respondent No. 4 C.B.I. Respondent No. 1 to 3 initially filed reply of Deputy Superintendent of Police Asandh, District Karnal wherein it was contended that the local police tried to trace the whereabouts of the persons named in the F.I.R. but none was available. Constable Suraj Mal was also found absent and action was taken against him and he was placed under suspension. There was no clue regarding the whereabouts of the abducted daughter Draupdi, of the petitioner. In sum and substance the various steps taken by the police were mentioned in the reply but the net result of all these efforts was that no trace of Draupdi of any clue regarding her could be found out by the local police. The statement of Deputy Superintendent of Police aforesaid was brought on record but this Court vide order dated 22.9.1995 directed that since the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not a party to the proceedings and looking to the gravity of the matter and averments made in the petition, it would be proper that the reply ought to be filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. Accordingly, another reply was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 through respondent No. 2 D.I.G. Rohtak Range, Rohtak. In this reply, it was contended, inter alia, that Krishan Kumar Rao, D.S.P. Asandh was presently the Investigating Officer of this case and he was working under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police Shri Prashant Kumar Aggarwal, IPS. It was averred in the written statement that the case was registered on the complaint of Smt. Chander Kala, mother of Draupdi. It was entrusted for investigation initially to A.S.I. Sukhbir Singh of Police Station City Karnal who searched the whereabouts of the abducted girl. He also searched the constable Surajmal named in the F.I.R. as well as one Mr. Rana but they were not available. Shivani, the other person mentioned in the F.I.R. was questioned but her interrogation did not yield any tangible result regarding the whereabouts of the abducted daughter of the petitioner. It was contended that message giving the description of the abducted girl was flashed to all the police stations but still nothing could be found out. A perusal of the written statement will go to show that the detailed steps were taken by the police. No success was met regarding he whereabouts of Draupdi. It was mentioned that due to the mounting pressure, constable Surajmal surrendered before the C.I.A. staff on 22.7.1995. He was interrogated and he gave a detailed account of the place where he stayed upto 22.7.1995 but he stated that he had no knowledge about Draupdi as she was lastly seen by him on 2.7.1995 in the company of Shivani. Surajmal stated that he knew Draupdi since 1990 when he was a tenant in her house. The interrogation of Surajmal did not lead to any tangible result regarding the whereabouts of Draupdi. It was mentioned further in the written statement that the enquiries during investigation confirmed that Draupdi was seen at Pacca Pul on 4.7.1995 and 5.7.1995. On 15.8.1995 S.I. Om Parkash joined two young persons namely Manoj Ahlawat and Pawan Kumar in the investigation who disclosed that they were present at the birthday party of Shivani on 4.7.1995 in Mayur Dhaba and thereafter they dropped Shivani and Draupdi near Club Market in their car. Raj Kumar Rana and Shivani were again joined in the investigations but they did not give any clue about the whereabouts of Draupdi. Shivani told that Surajmal had met Draupdi on 2.7.1995 in the Karnal Market. The contention of the respondents further is that the police party searched for Draupdi at various places of Punjab and on 24.8.1995 investigation of this case was transferred to a special team headed by D.S.P. Asandh under the orders of Superintendent of Police, Karnal and an award of Rs. 10,000/- had been announced by the local police for giving information regarding the whereabouts of Draupdi. Despite all these efforts no trace of Draupdi was made. The description of Draupdi was flashed to all the police stations of Bombay and photo of Draupdi was also telecast on Bombay Doordarshan. Search was made by the police party at the Protection Home for Women in Chembur and Shaskiya Mahila Rajya Grah, Deonar but no success was met and no clue regarding Draupdi was found out.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that despite all these steps which are said to have been taken by the local police, the local police was unable to trace out Draupdi and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the local police is unable to trace Draupdi either alive or dead or find out any clue regarding her. In these circumstances, it was contended that it would be appropriate that the matter regarding the abduction of Draupdi, daughter of the petitioner be entrusted to the C.B.I. for investigation so that the C.B.I. may act independently and since the local police due to some reason or the other is unable to trace out Draupdi, her life may not be imperiled.;