Crl. Misc. No. M- 372 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 372 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: April 5, 2010 Nihal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. DS Adlakha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition by Nihal Singh-petitioner, has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for issuance of direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to take action against respondents No. 4 to 7 by registering an FIR and get the matter investigated through an independent agency like Crime Branch/CBI or by some other senior official of police, not below the rank of SP, so that guilty persons can be brought to justice. According to the petitioner, he is the victim of highly unfortunate circumstances. A sum of Rs. 8 lakhs were stolen from his house by one Noordeen and thereafter respondents No. 4 to 7 in connivance with each other, after getting money from said Noordeen, helped him in fleeing from the police custody, though he was arrested by them on 13.3.2009 and was never produced before the Magistrate on the next day. He gave two applications on 17.3.2009 and 31.3.2009 (Annexures P/2 and P/3 Crl. Misc. No. M- 372 of 2010 2 respectively) against those respondents to the higher police officials. When no action was taken those applications, he was constrained to sent a representation dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P/4) to respondent No.2 for conducting an impartial inquiry, but no such inquiry was conducted. Notice of motion was issued to respondent No.2 only regarding representation allegedly made by the petitioner, as it was submitted by his counsel that no action was taken on that representation. A detailed reply has been filed by the State. It is pleaded therein that the applications, so given by the petitioner, were duly inquired into and found to be false. In respect of the representation, it has been stated that no such representation was received by respondent No.2. No document has been annexed by the petitioner with this petition, on the basis of which it may be concluded that this representation was either given personally to respondent No.2 by any other mode. When such is the position, it cannot be held that such representation was given to respondent No.2. The present petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner can move representation to respondent No.2 regarding his grievances, if any. April 5, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE