Crl. Misc. No. M-25324 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25324 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 04.04.2011 Deepak ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sahil Kaushal, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondents No. 6,8 and 9. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Deepak for issuing directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to conduct fair investigation and to arrest accused-respondents No. 6 to 10 or to hand over the investigation to CBI or any other independent agency. Notice of motion was issued on 10.9.2009. In response thereto, reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 has already been filed and the same is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition mainly on the ground that the police has not conducted the proper and fair investigation in two FIRs bearing Nos. 180 dated 3.6.2009 registered under Sections 363,366,366-A,506,120-B IPC and FIR No. 181 dated 3.6.2009 Crl. Misc. No. M-25324 of 2009 (2) under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak lodged on the basis of complaint filed by Ramesh (now deceased), the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the father of the petitioner was very poor person and was working with his family members at Khatri Brick Kiln situated in village Ismila, Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak for the last six months prior to the date of occurrence. His minor daughter, namely, Manisha @ Monika was kidnapped. Ramesh (now deceased) filed a complaint in this regard against the accused persons, namely, Azad Singh, Ram Pal, his wife Bimla and one Dalip. The said application was given to Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak on 29.5.2009, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that her daughter, namely, Manisha @ Monika aged about 14 years was kidnapped by accused Pardeshi in connivance with accused Ram Pal, Bimla, Dalip and Azad Singh but police did not register FIR against them. Subsequently, father of the petitioner also approached I.G., Rohtak and made complaint but no action was taken against the accused persons. It was also mentioned that his daughter was kidnapped because of some altercation with Ram Pal, who was working at same brick kiln. Subsequently, on 1.6.2009, the father of the petitioner was also kidnapped and on 2.6.2009, petitioner received message on his mobile that the dead body of his father was lying at a distance of 2-3 acres from Khatri Brick Kiln. After the death of father of the petitioner, two aforesaid FIRs were registered against the accused persons i.e. respondents No. 6 to 10. Learned counsel also submits that daughter of deceased-Ramesh and sister of the present petitioner was not recovered by the police because the accused persons are very influential persons and a pressure was put upon the petitioner to withdraw the FIRs or to face the consequences. Even the father of the petitioner was murdered because he did not agree to withdraw the FIR against the accused persons. Even inspite of registration of the Crl. Misc. No. M-25324 of 2009 (3) FIR, accused persons were not arrested and no action was taken against them. Even minor Monika was not traced out by the police and instead of recovering the sister of the petitioner, his father was murdered as he was pursuing the case against the accused persons and he was given threat to withdraw the complaint. Learned counsel also submits that the investigating agency in connivance with respondent Nos. 6 to 10 did not take any action against the accused persons and father of the petitioner was also murdered at their instance. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that daughter of deceased-Ramesh got married with one Pardeshi and as per statement of Manisha @ Monika (daughter of deceased-Ramesh) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was a case of run away marriage and custody of Manisha @ Monika was handed over to her in laws and moreover, as per ossification test, the age of Manisha @ Monika was 17-19 years. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-persons were found innocent and cancellation report was also prepared. Learned counsel also submits that father of the petitioner committed suicide because of conduct of his daughter who ran away and solemnized marriage with one Pardeshi and now residing with him in State of Chhatisgarh. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 6,8 and 9 also submits that private respondents have falsely been implicated in this case and they were not involved in the alleged occurrence in any manner. Even in the polygraphy test, they were not found involved in the alleged occurrence and the investigation has been conducted in a fair manner. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer to the extent that the petitioner would be satisfied if the investigation is conducted by a team of two senior officers. Learned State counsel has no objection in case the matter be Crl. Misc. No. M-25324 of 2009 (4) investigated by two senior officers. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the restricted prayer of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the inquiry is conducted by team of two senior officers and the fact that the counsel for the respondent-State has also no objection in the said prayer, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to conduct fresh investigation of the case by a team of two officers of S.P. Rank of Crime Branch within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Registry is directed to hand over the paper book including the copy of the petition, reply filed by the State as well as private respondents and also the orders passed by this Court on various dates immediately without any delay to respondent No.2, who shall further hand over the same to the concerned team. It is also made clear that the statement of the petitioner as well as other concerned persons be recorded and the petitioner be also associated with the said inquiry. S.P., Rohtak is also directed to ensure the security of the petitioner during the time of recording his statement. Disposed of accordingly. April 04, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No