CRM No. M 14763 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 14763 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.03.2011 Naryan Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. N S Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. D S Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No. 5 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to hand over the investigation in FIR No. 46 dated 12.02.2009 under Sections 323, 363, 365, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahendergarh to some senior Police officer or to some independent investigating agency as the accused in the case are very influential persons and Respondent No. 5 is a police official. As such, no action has been taken against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the daughter of CRM No. M 14763 of 2009 2 the petitioner was abducted and raped. Accordingly, the said FIR was registered after considerable efforts made on behalf of the petitioner. Even, after lodging of the FIR, the investigation made no headway. Then finally, cancellation report was submitted. The said cancellation report was accepted vide order dated 09.08.2010 by the trial Court. Thereafter, the present petitioner challenged the order accepting the cancellation report before this High Court in CRM M 33343 of 2010. The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2010. Accordingly, the order accepting the cancellation report was set aside. It is further stated that thereafter also, the investigation has made no headway. It is also contended that the daughter of the petitioner was kidnapped by Sandeep and Kalu. The kidnappers confined Jyotsana at some farm house near Inchhapuri for about five days and was repeatedly raped. Ultimately, on 13.02.2009, the kidnappers left the daughter of the petitioner at Railway Station Gurgaon and fled away. The girl boarded a train from Mahendergarh and was seen at Rewari Railway Station and the police at Mahendergarh was informed, where the girl was taken into custody by the police of Mahendergarh. It is further stated that, thereafter, the police official threatened and misbehaved with the girl as well as her younger sister. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the medical report (P2) to show that the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that since allegation is levelled against the police official, the investigation conducted in the present case by the police officials has not been fair. It is further stated that the chances of CRM No. M 14763 of 2009 3 manipulation of the said FSL report cannot be ruled out on account of the involvement of the police officials. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the girl was recorded wherein, she did not name any body and has been changing her stand each time. Heard. A perusal of the P-5 which is stated to be a representation by the prosecutrix herself speaks for itself. The reason as to why she did not name any body in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been clarified. Allegations are serious. So much so, even the accused who had kidnapped the daughter of the present petitioner were not arrested and cancellation report was submitted. Allegations have been levelled against respondent No. 5 who is a police official. It is not understood as to why the said girl was kept in the police station and was not allowed to go with her parents on the intervening night of 13.02.2009 when she was taken into custody from the Railway Station. Cancellation report was set aside by the High Curt. Further investigation was ordered by trial Court. Still, the final report has not been submitted for reasons best known. Therefore, without commenting anything on the investigation conducted by the police and further conduct as alleged by the prosecutrix in her representation (P5) as well as taking into account the serious allegations, lest it affects or cause injustice to either of the parties, it would be proper in the facts of the case that the investigation of the case is handed over to the CRM No. M 14763 of 2009 4 State Crime Branch, to be conducted by the senior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, who shall conduct an inquiry and complete the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order and submit the final report before the concerned Court. Disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order be supplied to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Reader attached to this Court for its compliance. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.03.2011 mohan