Crl.Misc. No. M-4322 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4322 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:December 02, 2010 Mahender Devi Rathee ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. V.S.Punia,Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Latika Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. N.S.Sekhawat,Advocate for respondents No. 7,8,10,11,12 &13 Mr.Atul Kaushik, Advocate for Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for CBI ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) praying for issuance of necessary orders or directions to respondent No.3 to hand over the investigation regarding the murder of the petitioner's son namely Sushil Kumar to respondent No.14 i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation or some other independent agency. Petitioner is the mother of the deceased-Sushil Kumar. Respondent No.7 was married with Sushil Kumar on 25.3.2009. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 7 started talking to her paramour on mobile phone after her marriage. When petitioner and her son objected to the said Crl.Misc. No. M-4322 of 2010 2 act of respondent No.7, she threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Respondent No. 7 pressurized Sushil Kumar to get the house situated in Narwana registered in her name. The family members of respondent No. 7 also pressurized the petitioner and her son to register the house in the name of respondent No.7. Sushil Kumar left the house on 1.5.2009 and on return told the petitioner that he was being harassed by the family members of respondent No.7. On 4.5.2009 the son of the petitioner went to attend his duty but did not return back home and hence, the petitioner lodged the report with the police qua missing of her son. On 15.5.2009, petitioner came to know that a dead body was recovered from Golewala Head and has been cremated by Naujawan Welfare Society, Bathinda. She identified the dead body of her son from the photogrpahs and clothes. Despite various efforts made by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the Police authorities against the culprits who have committed the murder of her son. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Admittedly, the dead body of the son of the petitioner was recovered from Golewala Head (Talwandi Sabo). The dead body was cremated by Naujwan Welfare Society, Bathinda. A perusal of the post mortem report reveals that there was no external mark of injury on the dead body. The death of the deceased was due to drowning. A perusal of the reply filed by the State of Haryana reveals that the matter was duly inquired into by the Police of Police Station Narwana and it was found that the death of Sushil Kumar was the result of drowning in the canal. The other allegations levelled by the petitioner were Crl.Misc. No. M-4322 of 2010 3 found to be false. A perusal of the reply filed by the State of Punjab reveals that on recovery of the dead body of unknown person from Golewala Head, the same was handed over by the Naujwan Welfare Society to ASI Gurdev Singh. The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination and the cause of death was given as asphyxia due to drowning. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to Naujwan Welfare Society for cremation as it was unclaimed and unidentified. On 15.5.2009, petitioner went to the Office of the Naujwan Welfare Society and identified the dead body of her son from the photographs. Respondent No.7 also identified the dead body of the deceased from the photographs and her statement was recorded on 9.9.2009. Motorcycle bearing no. HR32A 9727 was recovered from the Bank of Bhakra Canal near village Naiwala. From the side bag of the said motorcycle, an identity card, a driving licence and a suicide note was recovered which was taken by the Police. As per the suicide note Annexure R8/2, attached with the reply filed by the private respondents, Sushil Kumar had stated that he was dying of his freewill and nobody was involved in this. Annexure R8/4 is the statement made by Nihal Singh Panch, Karan Singh Bhakal, Ramphal, Dharambir, Partap Singh Member Banwari Lal Chamar Naresh Chander, Om Parkash and Vijay Singh that the petitioner was not a good lady and she has been moving false applications. She also sold the land situated in the village Madanpura at the cheaper rate. The residents of Madanpura and Danonda Kalan has no concern with her. Para 6 of the preliminary submission of the reply of the private respondents reads as under:- Crl.Misc. No. M-4322 of 2010 4 “That after this, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to Naujawan Welfare Society, Bathinda, who performed the last rites of the deceased Sushil Kumar as nobody else claimed the dead body. However, later on just to grab the property of the deceased, the petitioner started making false applications to various authorities. Consequently, the matter was examined by DSP, Narwana and he recorded the statements of various respectables . Copy of the statement made by the respectables has been annexed herewith as Annexure R-8/4. During the course of enquiry, on 13.4.2010, the statement of Ram Charan and Chander Bhan, brothers-in-law of the petitioner, were also recorded. Even the said statements of the two persons clearly show that the petitioner had a fight with the deceased and he was opposed to the fact that several wrong persons used to visit the present petitioners. Even they had raised serious questions with regard to the character and conduct of the present petitioner. Even Ram Nath, brother of Mahender Devi, petitioner along with respondent No.8 and others made application to the SSP, Jind and he was requested to take action against the petitioner. It was clearly stated that the petitioner was disposing of the property unnecessarily and she was working with anti-social elements. These anti-social elements want to grab the property by taking help of the petitioner and now they wanted to put the blame of murder on answering respondent and his family members wrongly. The answering respondent is in possession of the detailed representation submitted by respondent No.8, brother of Crl.Misc. No. M-4322 of 2010 5 the petitioner, brothers-in-law of the petitioner and can be shown at the time of arguments, if so directed. Thus, it is apparent that the present petition is an instrument of gross misuse of the process of law.” It is unfortunate that the son of the petitioner has died at an early age. However, it has not come to light during investigation by both the States that there was any foul play by any person qua the death of Sushil Kumar. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. However, the petitioner, if aggrieved may file a private complaint, for redressal of her grievance. ( Sabina ) Judge December 02, 2010 arya