IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.76-M of 2010 Date of Decision:2.7.2010 Rampat .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. D.K. Jangra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, AAG Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. In pursuance to the order dated 19.4.2010, SI Kartar Singh and ASI Nathu Ram are present in the Court. The affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani has also been filed and the same is taken on record wherein it is stated that for making wrong statement before the Court, the departmental enquiry has been initiated against ASI Kartar by deponent vide order dated 3.6.2010. Thus, no further order is required to be passed by the Court in this regard. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting-aside the final report dated 10.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) as well as for issuance of direction to re-investigate the case from some high-ranked official against the accused person. In the status report filed by way of affidavit of Ashwin, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, it is further submitted that the cancellation report was prepared in the said case on 10.6.2007 by the then SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani but the same has never been submitted before the Court. After going into the entire matter, the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani on 26.5.2010 noticed that the investigating officer has not recorded the statement of executors of disputed power of attorney. Neither the thumb impressions of executors were Crl. M. No.76-M of 2010 -2- compared. Hence, vide order dated 18.6.2010, he has directed the SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani to further investigate the case promptly. Thus, in view of the above, the prayer for setting aside the final report has been rendered infructuous as no such final report has been prepared or submitted. With respect to the second prayer i.e. re- investigation be ordered, the same has also been rendered infructuous as the re-investigation has also been ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. However, taking into account the entire totality of the facts and circumstances and the way, the investigation was conducted as per the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police himself, let the re-investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of DSP. Disposed of in the above terms. 2.7.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE