Missing Girl: Rights panels put Mohali SSP on notice

  • Amandeep Dixit, Hindustan Times, SAS Nagar
  • Updated: Jul 22, 2014 17:23 IST

Punjab State Human Rights Commission, and Punjab State Commission for Women issued a notice to the senior superintendent of police of SAS Nagar, and directed the district police to file the details of investigation in connection with a case of alleged abduction of a 19-year-old girl.

The victim's brother-in-law Suraj, in his complaint, alleged that his sister-in-law was abducted on May 6. He also showed suspicion on some persons. However, the police registered the case against unidentified persons under sections 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) and 34 (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code on May 6.

The victim's sister Poonam, on June 30, approached the Punjab State Commission for Women regarding her missing sister and following that complaint, the commission directed the SAS Nagar police to file a detailed report of the investigation within 45 days. Meanwhile, the state human rights commission also asked for a general report of the case by August 17, following another application moved by Suraj.

In his application, the victim's brother-in-law said the police was not giving them satisfactory answers regarding the whereabouts of the girl missing for more than two months.

Suraj said he had asked the police several times about the development of the case, and it had been noticed that the police had not made enough efforts to trace the girl.

Confusion about the age of victim
The FIR reveals that the girl was 19-year-old but the victim's brother-in-law claimed that she was 17. Suraj said he had procured a document from the victim's school to prove her age but the police had denied the fact, he alleged.

The case
A 17-year-old girl went missing from her house at Balongi in SAS Nagar on May 6. The case was registered against unidentified persons. According to police, a day after the case was registered, a neighbour of the complainant had received the phone call of the victim twice, but she did not share any information about her whereabouts.

also read

Councillor’s report card: A tongue-tied man, a job half-done
Show comments