http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  258 of 2008

PETITIONER: STATE OF A.P & ANR

RESPONDENT: V.YESHODHA & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & C.K. THAKKER & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.258 OF 2008 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.2946 OF 2006)

               Leave granted. Heard.

2.              An Habeas Corpus petition was filed by the first respondent (mother of a  married minor girl) alleging that her daughter had been missing from 4.8.2004 and that her  enquiries revealed that the second respondent herein had forced her daughter to ’accompany’  him.  But strangely the girl’s husband Madhusudhan Reddy did not take any action in the  matter. The Division Bench of the High Court took cognizance of the matter and issued a  series of directions to the police to trace the girl.   The police filed affidavits from tim e to  time in regard to the steps taken and reported that the girl could not be traced.   3.              The High Court  disposed of the writ petition by order dated 3.2.2006 with a   direction to continue the investigation and produce the girl as and when traced.  In the  

said order dated 3.2.2006, the Division Bench  made an     observation   about    the    functioning   of   police,   that  "police concerned have not taken steps which should have  been taken and even after giving a long room to them, they have not done anything in the  matter".  The High Court also directed  the Director General of Police to initiate an inquir y  against the officials who were responsible for investigation of the case.  Aggrieved thereby ,  the State filed this appeal by special leave.  4.              We are informed that the detenu has herself filed an affidavit before the Hi gh  Court on 20.4.2006 (after the impugned order) stating that she has married  the second  respondent herein and would like to stay with him. She has also contended that her forced  marriage with Madhusudhan Reddy was not valid as she was then a minor.  Be that as it may.   The learned counsel for the appellants contended that if a girl intentionally elopes with so me  one and goes into hiding, it will be very difficult for the police to trace her and in the  circumstances, the High Court was not justified in making the adverse comment and  directing an enquiry. .  5.              On examination of the facts, we agree with the contention of the appellants.    The Division Bench  was not justified in making  the observation about the functioning of  

the police officers or in  ordering an enquiry against them. We, therefore, order deletion o f  the said observation as also the direction for enquiry contained in the impugned order. The  appeal is disposed of accordingly.