Court slams Delhi police inaction on father’s 2014 plaint regarding missing son

New Delhi: It has been more than nine years since Ram Kishor lodged a missing report of his son Deepak Kumar but all the questions remain unanswered even today.

It would not be unfair to say that the police’s approach in the matter has been indifferent. Time and again, the courts have pulled up the police for shoddy investigation, and the case is no different here.

The case stems from a missing report Kumar’s father had lodged on August 4, 2014. According to him, Kumar did not return home after he went out two days before the complaint was filed.

The complainant (Kumar’s father) has been running from pillar to post since 2014, but the Delhi police conducted only an allegedly sham investigation in the initial year of lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and thereafter stopped investigating at all.

Multiple representations have been submitted by the complainant to police officials but to no avail.

In 2018, the complainant approached the Delhi High Court, which directed that the final report be filed within 12 weeks.

“That was also done and we lodged a contempt plea. It is only after we lodged the contempt, that the Delhi police filed an Untrace Report in 2019 stating that nothing could be found,” advocate Namit Saxena said.

After the court issued notice on the police’s untrace report, a protest petition was filed by the complainant.

Last year, a reply to the protest petition was filed by the police stating that all possible efforts to trace the victim have been made. However, no clue or information regarding the boy could be found.

Directing further investigation in the matter, Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) of Saket Courts Akshay Sharma has allowed the protest petition.

“…this court is of the opinion that matter be remanded back for further investigation in a proper manner and report be filed within reasonable time without further delay as the present case pertains to the year, 2014. Accordingly, the present protest petition is allowed,” Sharma said.

After five years of FIR registration, when the police filed its untrace report in 2019, it was stated by the investigation agency that due to continuous efforts of searching for the victim this delay of years has occurred.

“…perusal of the record does not reflect the continuous efforts which is stated to be the reason for delay,” the court noted.

It is also noteworthy that the complainant had received an extortion call demanding Rs 10 lakh, which was made to him by the alleged accused O.P. Thakur and that aspect has not been investigated by the police.

The police has merely stated in the untrace report and the reply to the protest petition that upon interrogation, nothing incriminatory was discovered against the suspected
individuals.

“Though no formal interrogation report or any statement u/s 161 CrPC of any of the suspected alleged accused persons was recorded by the concerned IOs. Thus the basis on which the alleged accused persons have been exonerated by the investigation agency remains unexplained,” the court stated.

Slamming the Investigating Officers (IOs) for believing whatever the alleged suspects stated was the gospel truth, the court said that it was imperative for the concerned IOs to record the statement of the suspected individuals to incline this court to believe in the bona fide efforts undertaken for investigation of this case.

In conclusion, the court stated that “proper investigation has not been conducted in the instant case as the aspect of extortion as alleged by the complainant has not been investigated into, no investigation regarding the bike of Deepak found near a canal has been conducted, no investigation as to the fact that why Himanshu was using the ATM card of victim Deepak on frequent basis is conducted and no details of withdrawing money from victim’s bank account is placed on record”.

“No formal interrogation report or any statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code is recorded by the concerned IOs,” the court noted while allowing the protest petition by remanding back the case for further investigation.