IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA C.W.P No. 43 of 2005 Date of Decision :16.03.2010 __________________________________________________________ Renu Baljee. ….Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 2 & 3: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents No. 1, 4 & 5: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This Writ Petition seeks direction by this Court against respondents No. 4 and 5 i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh to carry out further investigation in case F.I.R. No. 364/1996 under Section 302/120- B I.P.C. read with Sections 27, 45, 59 of the Indian Arms Act. This Writ Petition remained pending for quite a long time. The allegation made against the Investigating Agency by the petitioner is that Sh. I.P. Chaudhary was the 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 purported perpetrator of the crime, but he has not been arrayed as one of the accused and tried for the offence charged. I need not go into this aspect of the matter or the objection raised by the respondents. I do not wish to express any opinion on these facts. Suffice it to say that it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Court can direct the investigation to be carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other Investigating Agency in order to apprehend the culprits/accused in a particular case. The trial of the accused before the Ld. Sessions Judge has ended in their acquittal. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition does not survive and is disposed off as such. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. All interim orders shall stand vacated. This order shall not in any manner be construed as expressing any opinion on the trial or any of the grounds urged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. I have made this specific observation because the order of the Ld. Sessions Judge will of course be open for further scrutiny in appeal etc. No orders as to cost. March 16, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS Judge