Crl.M.No.37862-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.37862-M of 2010 Date of order: 24.12.2010 Dr. Vikram Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J In the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.4.2009 (P.4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in case FIR No.194 dated 21.5.2008 under Sections 304-B/201/120-B/34 IPC, P.S Sadar, Bhiwani whereby application/objection petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed; with further prayer to hand over the investigation to an independent agency of the Centre Govt specially CBI. The brief facts are that an FIR No.194 dated 21.5.2008 under Sections 304-B/201/120-B/34 IPC, P.S Sadar, Bhiwani was registered on the basis of a statement made by one Rakesh Singh by alleging that his daughter, namely, Rachhna was got married with one Jai Bhagwan on 12.11.2005 and he has given sufficient dowry. It has been further alleged that in-laws of his daughter were demanding dowry on different occasions. Crl.M.No.37862-M of 2010 #2# On 15.5.2008, brother of the complainant-Chhatar Singh visited to the village Dhani Hari Singh, where Rachhna was married and came to know that she had been murdered on 14.5.2008 by her in-laws and cremated her dead body without informing them due to bringing insufficient dowry. Case was investigated by the local police under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. During investigation, it was found by the Investigating Officer that no offence is made out against the alleged accused and consequently a cancellation report was submitted to the court of Illaqa Magtrate on 15.1.2009. It is alleged that during investigation the statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C but the copy of the same has not been supplied to the petitioner despite making numerous requests. Since the case was triable by the court of Sessions, therefore, the same was assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani after committal wherein the statement dated 24.4.2009 (P.3) of complainant Rakesh Singh was recorded. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner-Vikram Singh also filed an application/objection petition on 19.1.2009 against the cancellation report. Keeping in view the statement of complainant-Rakesh Singh and material available on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner-Vikram Singh and accepted the cancellation report submitted by the police vide order dated 24.4.2009 (P.4). In these circumstances, the present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab & Haryana Crl.M.No.37862-M of 2010 #3# High Court Bar Association through its Secretary v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1023, the petitioner has the locus standi to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C being an interested party in the matter. It is further argued that there was sufficient material available on record before the learned trial Court to proceed further in the matter and, therefore, instead of accepting the cancellation report, the trial should have continued. It is also argued that the cancellation report is the result of connivance of the police with the accused party as there was no fair investigation in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. This court does not find any illegality or failure of justice while passing the impugned order dated 24.4.2009 (P.4) by the learned trial Court for the reasons recorded hereinafter. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani after committal of the case recorded the statement of complainant Rakesh Singh on 24.4.2009 (P.3) and the same is reproduced as hereunder: “Stated that I have no objection regarding cancellation of the case. The present case was registered due to some misunderstanding regarding the death of Rachhna, my daughter. I am satisfied with the police investigation and do not want to pursue the case and the present cancellation report is accepted. Reply of the application/objection dated 27.2.2009 was submitted by my counsel Shri S.S. Raghav on my instructions and the same be read as reply on my behalf.” It is necessary to mention here that the complainant Rakesh Singh is the father of deceased Rachna whereas the petitioner-Vikram Singh is undisputedtly neither a cited witness nor related to either of the parties. Merely by alleging that statement of petitioner was also recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C does not entitle the petitioner to Crl.M.No.37862-M of 2010 #4# challenge the impugned order dated 24.4.2009 (P.4) passed by learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record. Although, it is necessary to mention here that no such statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C is available on record of the present petition. A perusal of the statement made by complainant-Rakesh Singh reproduced hereinabove makes it very clear that the case was registered due to some misunderstanding and he is satisfied with the investigation of the police and he does not want to pursue the case and he has no objection if the cancellation report is accepted. It is also necessary to mention here that the complainant Rakesh Singh also filed his reply/objection dated 27.2.2009 through his counsel on his instructions but the same is not placed on record by the petitioners for the reasons best known to him. So far as the case of Bar Association (supra) is concerned i.e clearly distinguishable on facts as that was a case pertaining to the issues regarding the abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate practising at District Court, Ropar, his wife and a child aged about 2 years on 25.1.1993 and the controversy had shocked the lawyer fraternity in the region as the entire Bar Associations in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh went on strike thereby virtually stopping the functioning of the courts throughout the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for the fresh investigation into the mysterious and most tragic incidence keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case and to do complete justice in the matter and to instil confidence in the public mind ordered the fresh investigation through a specialized agency like the CBI and at the same time also made a statement of law as under: “What appears to be settled position of law is that whereas any person can set the criminal law into motion, no stranger can Crl.M.No.37862-M of 2010 #5# challenge conviction or other adverse order recorded against a person under the garb of public interest litigation. Such action can be taken by the person concerned and where such person is under a disability, by his next friend etc.” Admittedly, in the present case, the FIR was lodged by the complainant-Rakesh Singh, who is not shown to have any legal disability to pursue the matter. It is also not in dispute that the police has investigated the matter and recorded the statements of different witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C and came to the conclusion that no offence is made out against the accused and ultimately cancellation report was submitted in the court of learned Illaqa Magistrate. After committal of the case, learned trial Court has taken into consideration the cancellation report, reply/objection petition filed by the complainant-Rakesh Singh and his statement was also recorded in the court and found that the cancellation report is justified and accepted the same. Had there been any lapses in the investigation by the police, the complainant-Rakesh Singh and his family members are very much present in this world and competent to pursue the matter according to law. But since they are satisfied with the investigation by the police and that is why they have chosen not to pursue the matter any further and accepted the cancellation report. The petitioner has unnecessarily filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which is nothing but wastage of valuable time and misuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. December 24, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE