IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10665 of 2004 Date of Decision : February 11, 2011. Kiranbir Singh Kang .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Addl.AG. Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the State of Punjab and the police authorities to entrust the investigation of the case FIR No.159 dated 2.7.2004 registered at Police Station Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out impartial investigation into the matter. It is stated by learned State counsel that during the pendency of this writ petition, a Special Investigating Team was constituted by the State Government who after investigating the matter has submitted a supplementary investigation report exonerating the petitioner of the allegations contained in the FIR and on the basis of said supplementary C.W.P.No .10665 of 2004 2 investigation report, the public prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution, but the same has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar vide order dated 31.1.2011. In view of the fact that the matter has been meanwhile investigated by the Special Investigating Team afresh, the prayer made in this writ petition has become substantially infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however, without expressing any views on the allegations and counter allegations, with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the order dated 31.1.2011, referred to above, before an appropriate forum, if so advised. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to raise the additional contentions, if any. However, it is directed that the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 7.12.2004 shall continue to operate. Dasti. February 11, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE