CRIMINAL MISC. -M NO.37254 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 09, 2011 Kiran .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In Criminal Misc. M No.37254 of 2011 (Kiran Vs. State of Haryana and others), the petitioner seeks direction for proper investigation of a case bearing FIR No.669 dated 3.10.2011 registered under Sections 376, 292, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Jind City. Prayer also is to direct investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation. Through Criminal Misc. M No.37255 of 2011 (Kiran and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), the petitioners seek direction for providing protection of her life and liberty, which, as per the petitioners, is in danger from respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the said petition. CRIMINAL MISC. -M NO.37254 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: As per her own showing, petitioner-Kiran had developed a physical relationship with respondent No.4, which she attributes to a promise of marriage with her by respondent No.4. This physical relationship had continued for 4 years. During this period, respondent No.5, who is stated to be a friend of respondent No.4, is alleged to have recorded the activities of physical relationship on his mobile phone through some hole in the partition of room of respondent No.4. It is further stated that respondent No.5 had prepared a C.D. of this act between petitioner and respondent No.4 and on that basis had started black- mailing. When she told this to respondent No.4, he assured her of marriage and, thus, they continued to have sexual relationship. The petitioner claims to have informed her parents but they also statedly rebuked her. Subsequently, however, respondent No.4 has refused to stand by the commitment of marriage and had even threatened the petitioner to play this C.D on the internet, if any complaint is made in this regard. The petitioner still reported the matter to the police and so the FIR has been registered. The matter does not end here. The petitioner has further disclosed that respondent No.4 called her on the promise of marriage and compelled her to execute an affidavit on 31.10.2011 to make a statement in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the Court to withdraw the FIR in CRIMINAL MISC. -M NO.37254 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: question. She was accordingly taken to the Court on 14.11.2011 and apparently has made this statement. The petitioner subsequently had met D.S.P as well as S.P., Jind, who have statedly pressurized her to compromise, as otherwise her social life will be ruined. It is in this background, the petitioner has prayed for investigation and transfer of the same to C.B.I., when she learnt that respondent No.5 has been enlarged on bail. The facts in this case would clearly reveal that the petitioner has continued to have this physical intimacy with respondent No.4 voluntarily for 4 years. The petitioner is not a novice to be mislead on account of promise of marriage for all these years. The story of preparing C.D also does not seem to be plausible. In the facts and circumstances of this case, any direction to investigate this FIR fairly, when she has even gone to the Court to make statement withdrawing her allegations would really be uncalled for. There seems to be something more than which is apparent to the naked eye in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it to be an appropriate case for issuing any direction for investigation into this case or for providing any protection to the petitioner. Police is well equipped to act in the case. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. December 09 ,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE