CRM No. M-10022 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-10022 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2009 Maya Devi Panch ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition wherein the petitioner has sought a direction to investigate the case and present challan in FIR No.162 dated 11th September, 2008, registered under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC at Police Station Madhuban against respondents No.3 and 4. According to the counsel neither any arrest has been made so far pursuant to the FIR nor the investigation has made any headway. On the other hand, an inquiry headed by Block Development and Panchayat Officer has been instituted. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that FIR in question was registered on 11th September, 2008 and investigation of the case was taken up. In my considered view, the prayer that a direction be issued to the police to CRM No. M-10022 of 2009 2 present challan, is totally misconceived. The outcome of the investigation depends upon the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. No direction can be issued by this court to present challan against respondents No.3 and 4. The prayer for issuance of a direction to arrest respondents No.3 and 4, in my considered view is equally misconceived. It is for the Investigating Officer to take a decision to arrest the accused in case the circumstances so warrant. No such direction by this court is necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show anything in support of his claim that the investigation is not proceeding in the right direction. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 21, 2009 'rajpal'