IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.14595-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 UDAY SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks investigation of FIR No.861 dated 3.10.2006 under Sections 302, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Hisar by the CBI, New Delhi. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an incident took place, wherefor the petitioner lodged FIR No.738 dated 29.8.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Hisar. Allegations were made against Udayvir, Narender, Yudhvir and Mahabir. There was a cross-version also. The petitioner also filed a criminal complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It has been contended that despite the FIR having been lodged, Criminal Misc.14595-M of 2008 2 the petitioner was threatened and, therefore, an application was made to the S.P. seeking protection. Another incident took place on 19.9.2006 wherein injuries were caused. On a pointed question of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no MLR, however, there are affidavits to establish the incident. The present incident took place on 3.10.2006 wherein the younger brother of the petitioner was murdered by accused, who were also involved in the earlier incident of 26.8.2006. The accused were named before the police. After completion of investigation, however, Kulbir has been shown as an accused. Kulbir is cousin of the petitioner. In the challan, the accused named in the FIR have not been implicated, for political reasons. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation has not been conducted properly in so much as the Chemical Examiner's report (Annexure P-13) does not indicate consumption of alcohol, therefore, the entire story built up by the prosecution/Investigating Agency, turns out to be false. On a consideration of the issue, I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court for the same relief in regard to the same incident by way of filing CRM 64896-M of 2006. In view of the fact that challan had been presented after investigation and even charges had been framed, the petition was directed to be filed vide order dated 4.10.2007. On a pointed question of this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that all the prosecution witnesses have been Criminal Misc.14595-M of 2008 3 examined and the trial is, now, fixed for 9.9.2008. The petitioner has also filed a criminal complaint in regard to the same incident, which is pending adjudication. Having regard to the stage of the case that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, no directions for investigation into the incident relating to 3.10.2006, can be issued. The petition is dismissed. September 2, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE