Crl. Misc. No. M-25936 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25936 of 2011 Date of Decision : 12th December, 2011 Rohtash .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. S. Bakshi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1 to 4. Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, Advocate for respondent No.5. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Rohtash has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr. P.C.) seeking arrest of respondent No.5 Raj Kumar in FIR No.46 dated 23.06.2011 registered under Sections 328, 363, 366-A, registered at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa and also seeking protection of life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members being threatened at the hands of respondent No.5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Aforesaid FIR was lodged by petitioner's daughter alleging that she was kidnapped by respondent No.5 and Vinod Kumar and Dharamvir Crl. Misc. No. M-25936 of 2011 -2- and made unconscious by making her smell some intoxicating substance from handkerchief and was raped by them. The petitioner has alleged that official respondents are not taking action against respondent No.5 inspite of FIR regarding heinous crime and he has not been arrested. It is also alleged that respondent No.5 is threatening the petitioner and his family members. Official respondents 1 to 4 in their reply/status report furnished by Additional Superintendent of Police, Sirsa have stated that Vinod Kumar and Dharamvir were arrested in the case and challan against them has been presented in concerned Court. Whereas, respondent No.5 Raj Kumar has been found innocent. It is alleged that respondent No.5 remained present in his house during day time on 21.06.2011 on account of Rasam Pagri of daughter-in-law of Jai Singh brother of respondent No.5 and on the next day he had gone to village Rupana Khurd for sending his niece Shakuntla to her matrimonial home and then he had gone to Bhattu Kalan and Sulikhera. The alleged occurrence took place on 21.06.2011 at 8.00pm and during the night. Call details of mobile telephone of respondent No.5 corroborated the aforesaid version. Respondent No.5 is a teacher. All his colleague teachers vouched safe innocence of respondent No.5. Some other facts have been mentioned in the reply. Respondent No.5 in his reply also opposed the petition inter alia alleging that he has been falsely implicated in the case for the party factions and on the instance of Rajesh who has faced trial for murder of brother of respondent No.5. Various other facts have been mentioned in the Crl. Misc. No. M-25936 of 2011 -3- reply. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that respondent No.5 has not been favoured by the police and learned State counsel for official respondents No.1 to 4 reiterated the stand mentioned in their reply. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also reiterated the stand of respondent No.5 and also contended that Court cannot give direction to the police to arrest or not to arrest the accused. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. C. Abraham and another versus State of Maharashtra and others, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal), 452. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down in the case of M. C. Abraham (supra) that arrest of accused is part of the investigation and is within the discretion of the investigating officer. The Court has no role to play at this stage. Consequently prayer of the petitioner in the petition for directing the official respondents to arrest respondent No.5, cannot be accepted. Even otherwise on investigation, respondent No.5 has been found to be innocent by the police. For this added reason also, direction for arrest of respondent No.5 cannot be issued. Challan has already been presented in the Court against Vinod Kumar and Dharamvir. Whereas, respondent No.5 has been placed in column No.2 of the Challan showing him innocent in the case. In these circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given liberty to avail of any remedy in accordance with law in preceding before the Magistrate/Trial Court. No interference by this Court Crl. Misc. No. M-25936 of 2011 -4- under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is warranted in the case. Investigation has already been completed. It would not be appropriate for this Court to direct the official respondents/Police authorities to take any further action against respondent No.5 in the FIR in question. It is ordered accordingly. Petitioner's daughter i.e. prosecutrix shall be provided protection on the day she has to appear as witness in the trial Court, as prayed for by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought protection for the petitioner and his family members as they will allegedly being threatened by respondent No.5. For this purpose official respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to assess threat perception to the petitioner and his family members and to take proper action in accordance with law for the same. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly, without meaning to express any opinion, whatsoever, on merits of the case. 12th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE