Crl. Misc. No. M-39140 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-39140 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 16.3.2010 Rajesh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for respondents No. 8 to 10. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Rajesh for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 4 for registration of case against respondents No.5 to 10 and to initiate disciplinary action under Rule 16.23 of Punjab Police Rules against erring officials and further to grant him compensation for his illegal custody and torture in view of law laid down in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1977 (1) Supreme Court Cases 416. Pursuant to the notice issued, separate replies on behalf of the respondents have been filed, which are on record. Vide order dated 3.12.2008, the inquiry of the present case was directed to be conducted by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which reads thus:- “After going through the allegations in the petition and the reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 by Inspector Ram Bilas, Crl. Misc. No. M-39140 of 2007 (2) SHO Police Station City Bhiwani, I deem it appropriate to direct the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani to hold an enquiry and to determine the following points:- (i) whether the petitioner had been beaten on 22.8.2005 by Ajit, Surender and Krishan, respondents No.5 to 7 as alleged in para 2 of the petition; (ii)whether the injuries received by petitioner as per the medico legal report dated 22.8.2005 had not been received by the petitioners at the hand of constable Ajit, Surender and Krishan. The onus to establish first point of determination will be on the petitioner and the onus to prove second point of determination will be upon the State respondents. It will be open to Sessions Judge to frame any other point for determination to find out the truthfulness of allegations in the petition or the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7. For report to come up on 20.5.2009. A copy of the petition and reply and other relevant documents be also sent to the Sessions Court.” In compliance of above directions, the inquiry has been conducted by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and the inquiry report is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani as it is based only on presumptions and the material evidence on record has not been considered. He further prays that if the inquiry is conducted by the police other than Bhiwani then the matter can be investigated properly. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as State submits that on the basis of directions issued by this Court, the inquiry was conducted by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and even in the inquiry conducted Crl. Misc. No. M-39140 of 2007 (3) by the police, no case has been made out against the private respondents. The prayer of the petitioner for conducting the inquiry by the police other than Bhiwani cannot be accepted, as the police has already conducted an inquiry. Moreover the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has also conducted a detailed inquiry and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the said inquiry, then he can avail his alternative remedy available to him. In view of the observations made above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy under law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to avail alternative remedy under law. March 16, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No