IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.9.2010 Rafiq …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana *** S.S. SARON, J. Learned State counsel submits that the factual position is that Wasim (respondent No.4) son of Nisar was married to Ruksana who is step daughter of the petitioner. However, in the reply it has inadvertently been mentioned that Ruksana was married with Nisar son of Wasim, whereas it should have been that she was married with Wasim son of Nisar. This has been mentioned in para 2 of the reply on merit. The grievance of the petitioner is that police has not carried out effective investigations in case FIR No.6 dated 18.1.2010 registered at Police Station Sadar Jagadhari for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, respondents No.4 to 8 are liable for committing the triple murder of Ruksana who is the step daughter of the petitioner and her grandson namely Hans; besides, of Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 [2] the foetus as Ruksana (daughter of the petitioner) was pregnant. Ruksana, the step daughter of the petitioner was married to Wasim (respondent No.4) son of Nisar. Nasim (respondent No.5) and Raju @ Mustkin (respondent No.6) are the younger brothers of Wasim (respondent No.4). Therefore, they are the husband’s brother (devar) of Ruksana (deceased). Yakub (respondent No.7) is the real brother of Nisar, father of Wasim (respondent No.4). Membood Ali (respondent No.8), it is stated, is the son of an uncle of Wasim (respondent No.4). It is alleged that Ruksana, step daughter of the petitioner soon after her marriage was harassed for bringing inadequate dowry and she was beaten. On 7.1.2010, the petitioner took his daughter to her matrimonial home as she had been with her parents for the last 10-15 days because she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. In this regard, a police complaint was also made. It is alleged that on 18.1.2010, under a planned conspiracy, all the accused persons in connivance with each other murdered the step daughter of the petitioner namely Ruksana and her one and a half years old son namely Hans; besides, she (Ruksana) was also pregnant at that time. They (accused) threw the dead bodies of the daughter of the petitioner and his grandson in the nearby fields of village Tajakpur. Initially the FIR was registered against unknown person, but later only Nisar, father-in-law of the deceased Ruksana was made an accused, whereas respondents No.4 to 8 are also liable. The copy of this petition was given to the learned State counsel and a reply has been filed. It is stated that on 18.1.2010 Jitender Kumar resident of Tajakpur, made a telephone call to the Police Station Sadar Jagadhari that the dead bodies of a child and a Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 [3] lady were lying in the sugarcane fields. On this, Kuldip Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Sadar Jagadhari reached the spot, where Jitender Kumar met him and his statement was recorded. He stated that some land was situated on Tajakpur Fatehgarh road in the revenue estate of village Darwa. In 5 kanals of land, he had sown sugarcane crops. Jitender Kumar on 18.1.2010 had come to his fields of sugarcane and found the dead bodies of a child aged about 1½ years and a woman aged about 24 years lying there. From the mouth and nose of the woman, blood was coming out. It seemed that somebody after murdering them had thrown the dead bodies in his fields. On the basis of the statement of Jitender Kumar, case FIR No.6 dated 18.1.2010 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Jagadhari against unknown persons. The dead bodies could not be identified and their photographs were taken. The dead bodies were kept in the dead house of Civil Hospital, Jagadhari for identification. Notice was got published in the name of General Public in the newspapers, local cable TV and by affixing pamphlets at public places but identification could not be made. On 21.1.2010, the post mortem of the dead bodies was conducted and the dead bodies were handed over to Muslim Samaj Society, Chaneti. The sealed parcels which were handed over by the doctors were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. The doctors had kept pending their opinion regarding cause of death to await the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. On 27.1.2010, Sultan Ahmad, Member Panchayat, along with Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) resident of Dayalgarh and Khursheeda came to Police Station Sadar Jagadhari and they Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 [4] after seeing the clothes and photographs of the dead bodies, identified them as that of Ruksana and Hans. Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) identified Ruksana as her daughter and Hans as her grandson. Her statement was recorded. She stated that previously she was married with Liaqat Ali, resident of Jagadhari. Out of this marriage, she had a two daughters namely Ruksana (deceased) and Afsana. Thereafter, Liaqat Ali died and then she (Kaneeja) married the petitioner Rafiq and out of that marriage, she had two sons. She had married her daughter Ruksana with Wasim (respondent No.4) son of Nasir about 3-4 years back. After her marriage, her daughter Ruksana was harassed and was being beaten by Nisar under the influence of liquor. Complaints regarding the harassment were made to the police on various occasions which, however, were compromised. She suspected that her daughter and grandson had been murdered by Nisar. Nisar was searched but he was not found. On the same day i.e. on 27.1.2010, Janak Raj, Sarpanch of village Dayalgarh produced Nisar before the police and Janak Raj stated that Nisar had confessed to him that he was fed up with Ruksana as she used to quarrel with him. On 17.1.2010, she had tried to run away from his house, but he tried to make her understand and said that he would leave her at her parents’ house. On 18.1.2010, Nisar took Ruksana and her child on cycle for leaving her at her parents’ house. When she reached in the area of Tajakpur, she got down from the cycle and refused to go to her parents house or to the house of her in- laws. Then she entered the sugarcane fields and an altercation took place between them. He, further stated that she got angry and took off her (Ruksana’s) shawl and strangulated her with the shawl. He, Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 [5] further stated that in the meantime, Ruksana fell down and the child came underneath her body and he also died. Accordingly, after the statement of Janak Raj, Nisar was arrested. After completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173 CrPC against the accused Nisar was filed in Court on 3.3.2010. Thereafter, charges were framed against Nisar on 22.4.2010 and till date, it is submitted that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and the case is fixed for trial on 30.9.2010. The statement of Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) has not so far been recorded. Learned State counsel has submitted that Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) in her statement made before the police on 27.1.2010 has named only Nisar and has not named respondents No.4 to 8 as accused. Besides, her statement has not been recorded in the Court so far. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) had also named respondents No.4 to 8. In this regard, he has submitted an affidavit dated 12.8.2010 of Kaneeja in Court today in which it is stated by Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) that she had stated to the police that her daughter was murdered by her in-laws in connivance with each other and there was dispute earlier also, which was resolved with the intervention of the respectables. She also stated that her daughter was pregnant at that time and not only her father-in- law, but all the other accused (respondents No.4 to 8) had murdered her daughter and she had requested them to take legal action against them. Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 [6] The case is now under trial. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to intervene in the trial of the case which is being conducted and is going on. Ordinarily the criminal proceedings which are instituted against an accused must be tried and taken to their logical confusion by the trial Court and the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with the proceedings at an interlocutory stage except in some exceptional case. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court to make such orders as it deems fit is for the purpose of preventing the abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The High Court is to exercise its inherent jurisdiction having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The stage of the case before the learned trial Court is that eleven witnesses have been examined and the trial is going on; besides, Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) has not so far been examined. On the basis of material as available on record, it cannot be determined as to whether Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) had indeed stated that she had also named the other in-laws (respondents No.4 to 8) of her daughter to be also responsible for the murder of Ruksana and Hans. The statement dated 27.1.2010 of Ruksana does not make a mention of the involvement of the others. Admittedly Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) has not been examined in the trial. Therefore, it is for the Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) to make her statement before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to start parallel proceedings in exercise of the inherent Crl. Misc. No. M-10643 of 2010 [7] jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC of this Court when the trial Court is seized of the matter. Therefore, the petitioner or his wife Kaneeja (mother of the deceased Ruksana) may, if so advised, avail their other remedies in accordance with law before the learned trial Court itself which is seized of the case. At this stage at which the case before the learned trial Court is, it would be inappropriate for this Court to intervene in the trial being conducted before the learned trial Court. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 15, 2010 amit