IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 333 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 30, 2009 Monu .....Petitioner Versus Navdeep Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL) On November 25, 2008 while disposing of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gohana to conduct the investigation of the case arising out of FIR No. 127 dated 27.6.2008 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gohana under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat was also directed to supervise the investigation and to ensure that statements of the persons who were in the know of the facts were taken and threupon the investigation to be conducted. The investigation was, however, to be concluded within a period of 60 days. According to the petitioner, neither the Investigating Agency recorded the statements of the persons who were in the know of the facts nor concluded the investigation within the stipulated period, i.e. 60 days and, thus, prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. C.O.C.P. No. 333 of 2009 -2- Separate replies have been filed by the respondents. In his reply, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat has mentioned that the case was taken up for investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gohana under his direct supervision. On 3.12.2008, DSP, Gohana examined several persons in the investigation, including the petitioner, his cousin Kuldeep, his uncle Dhan Singh besides Om Parkash, Sarpanch and Rattan Singh. All these persons corroborated their earlier statements which had been recorded by the Investigating Officer. One Ranbir son of Pyare Lal was also joined in the investigation. On 28.11.2008, a request was sent to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for obtaining suitable date and time for subjecting suspected persons Satish and Ved Singh to Polygraph Test. The appointment was granted for 13.12.2008, on which date DSP, Gohana sent Satish and Ved Singh to FSL, Madhuban. The Polygraph Test of Satish was conducted, whereas Ved Singh was refused to be subjected to the test by FSL, Madhuban after seeing the medical documents regarding his heart treatment, as according to them no useful purpose would be served by subjecting him to the said test. On 3.1.2009, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban was requested to send the report of Polygraph Test of Satish. The report was received on 8.1.2009. Pursuant thereto, the DSP, Gohana discussed the matter in detail with him. On 15.1.2009, DSP, Gohana visited village Jondhan Kalan and also the spot where deceased and Satish were allegedly last seen. Several persons were joined in the investigation, including Bimla wife of Same Singh, Member Panchayat and sister-in-law of the deceased. Thereafter he visited the residence of Ranbir son of Pyare Lal and joined him in the investigation. After completing the investigation, DSP, Gohana submitted a detailed report to him on 22.1.2009 about the investigation. Case was then examined at length and after careful C.O.C.P. No. 333 of 2009 -3- consideration of the matter, it was concluded that there was no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify that Ram Mehar was murdered by the suspected persons or by anybody else. Accordingly, it was decided to send the case for cancellation. A speaking order in that regard was passed by him, i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat on 22.1.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 165-R dated 22.1.2009. In view of the fact that the investigation has since been completed by DSP, Gohana, which had been supervised by Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, and it has been decided to send the case for cancellation, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the cancellation report by appearing before the Ilaqa Magistrate and filing the protest petition. However, nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 30, 2009 JUDGE satish