Criminal Misc.-M No.5082 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: December 08, 2008 Saroj .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr.I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Saroj wife of Narinder Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking fresh investigation that too by C.B.I in FIR No.222 dated 21.10.2007, registered under Sections 302/342/148 and 149 IPC. Her husband is the accused in this FIR and the petitioner alleges that respondent Nos.6 and 7 have got this Criminal Misc.-M No.5082 of 2008 : 2 : FIR registered against her husband as her husband had instituted a criminal complaint against them on 23.11.2005. The grievance is that the husband of the petitioner has been implicated in a false case of murder by giving a colour of murder to a case, which is a mere accident. The petitioner had to be so laborious in making a mention about her prayer in the title of a petition which runs into nearly three pages. Notice of motion in this case was issued and further proceedings were stayed. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out to the counsel that petition has been filed by the wife of the accused and he himself has not come forward to make any challenge either against his false implication or for seeking change of the investigating agency. It is first required to be seen whether accused or some body on his behalf can file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek change of investigating agency and get the criminal proceedings against him stayed on that count. The counsel for the petitioner was, thus, required to show if the wife would have locus to file such a petition or to maintain such a petition on behalf of her husband, who, in fact, is the accused in the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner in response could only submit that as per High Court Rules and Orders, `parokar' is entitled to file and maintain a petition and that is how the wife would be competent and have a locus to maintain this petition. The wife has not filed this petition being a parokar of Narinder Kumar, but she has filed this petition in her independent and individual capacity. Even in the short affidavit filed in support of this petition, she has not Criminal Misc.-M No.5082 of 2008 : 3 : disclosed if she is filing this petition as a parokar. Rather she is the one on whose instructions, the present petition has been prepared and she has verified it to be true and correct to her personal knowledge. In the presence of an accused himself available to seek any relief, the wife, in my view, would not have locus to file this petition or to maintain the same in her capacity as a wife of a person, accused of an offence. This petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed on this short ground. Even on merits, it would be doubtful if the petitioner would be entitled to maintain this petition on behalf of an accused to seek fresh investigation or investigation by C.B.I., on the ground of false implication. Any accused person, who is falsely implicated, has to ultimately prove his case before the court, if any case of accident is being given a colour of murder. An accused is entitled to a fair investigation as fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A victim of crime is equally entitled to a fair investigation. See Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, JT 2008(12) 331. There would hardly be an accused, who would ever feel satisfied with the outcome or result of investigation. If the court starts interfering with the manner of investigation by directing change of investigating officer or investigating agency, on the asking of accused persons it may lead to some un-warranted or undesirable results. Courts, otherwise, have hardly any role during investigation. It is only when the police or other agencies do not carry out their public duty to investigate the offence disclosed, then the court may monitor the investigation. Criminal Misc.-M No.5082 of 2008 : 4 : What all the petitioner has pleaded on behalf of her husband in the petition is his defence, which he would plead before the trial court. Simply because there was previous litigation pending between the parties would not mean that the respondents would be in a position to implicate the petitioner falsely. Respondent No.6 is an ASI, whereas respondent No.7 is a Head Constable. They would not have such overriding powers to influence their senior officers to falsely implicate the husband of the petitioner. I am not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction to interfere in this case having regard to the facts as afore-mentioned. Dismissed. December 08, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE