IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2193 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 22, 2009. Ram Diya ...Petitioner(s) v. Satish Balan ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Surender Singh Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, reply by way of affidavit of B. Satheesh Balan, Superintendent of Police, Jind has been filed wherein it has been submitted:- “That as far as investigation of case FIR No.109 dated 4.2.2009 u/s 365/302 IPC Police Station City Jind carried out by the State Crime Branch is concerned in this regard, it is submitted that Additional Director General of Police, Crime Haryana vide his office letter No.971/R/SP/CR dated 18.12.2009 has intimated to this office that the call data record of Mobile phone of complainant and alleged suspected persons was obtained in which it was found that SMS detail of BSNL Mobiel Nos. of complainant in laws of Manjeet Kundu was missing. Two mobiles sets of complainant were sent to FSL, Madhuban to retrieve the missing SMS Data where only 20 latest SMS of March, 2009 were retrieved which served no useful purpose. Al the three mobiles of in-laws of Manjeet Kundu were also sent to FSL, Madhuban for retrieving the missing SMS Data. Missing call detail of Mobile Nos.9416838907, 9416774780 belonging to Ramdiya complainant and Mobile No.9466638722, 9416773058 and 9416826765 of Karam Singh and his family from 1.1.2009 to 27.1.2009 was got retrieved from the system BSNL Exchange Sector 56 Chandigarh and it was found that one SMS was delivered from Mobile nO.9466638722 to 9416838907 and reciprocally on 1.1.2009. During the course of investigation, younger brother of Seema admitted this fact that he had sent a SMS of New Year greeting from their mobiles to the mobile number of family of Manjeet's. Number of Mobile was already feed in their Mobiles and the allegation of family of Manjeet was not supported by this data. It is further submitted that the investigation of this case has been carried out thoroughly on all points, but no evidence has been found which through the light as to whether and how Manjeet Kundu died. He was not having any enmity with any one. As per report of Medical Experts cause of death Manjeet Kundu was due to ante-mortem drowning and injuries described on the body could be inflicted by the impact of blunt force striking against the surface of canal having bricks surface. However, investigation of this case is still in progress. True copy of which is annexed here with as Annexure R-5.” In view of the aforesaid reply filed, learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press this petition. Rule discharged. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to have recourse to any other legal remedy available to him. December 22, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge