Allowed

Bharat Bhushan Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2012CRM-M/5476/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the Superintendent of Police, Panipat, to get a case investigated by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, expressing dissatisfaction with the lower investigation being verified by an ASI.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No. 3 to get the matter investigated from an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Bharat Bhushan Ahuja Vs State of Haryana and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-5476 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-5476 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 8^th , 2012

Bharat Bhushan Ahuja

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶14

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate, for the CBI.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

The present petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought by Bharat Bhushan Ahuja, the petitioner seeking directions to respondents No. 1 to 4 to hand over the investigation of the case registered by way of FIR No.700 dated 1.10.2009 at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat District Panipat (Annexure P3) for an offence punishable under sections 363, 365, 386, 323, 452, 506 of Indian Penal Code to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), respondent no.5 as the police of Police Station, Chandani Bagh, Panipat has succumbed to the pressure wielded by the accused which is quite

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-5476 of 2011

¶18

¶19

evident from the fact that the police has not only failed to arrest the culprits but failed to submit report of the investigation to the court of learned Illaqa Magistrate.

¶20

The State has filed its reply to the petition in which the details of the steps taken during investigation have been mentioned. It is mentioned thereafter that on 19.5.2010, an application was made by the petitioner to Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak on which the investigation was transferred to Superintendent of Police, Karnal who vide his order dated 29.6.2010 directed Inspector Ashok Kumar, Detective Staff, Karnal to investigate the matter. It has also been stated in the reply that now Inspector Devender Singh, Incharge, Detective Staff, District Police Office, Karnal is investigating the matter.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter, the State has filed status report by way of affidavit of Pardeep Singh Sheokand, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Panipat and has stated in para No. 1(g) thereof that Assistant Sub Inspector Shri Bhagwan, the investigating officer has found the facts mentioned in the cancellation report made by S.H.O., Police Station, Chandni Bagh to have been correct. According to him, after mentioning in the reply that Inspector Devender Singh is conducting the investigation, the investigation could not be given to Assistant Sub Inspector.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for a limited relief of entrustment of the investigation to a senior officer instead of entrustment of the investigation to the CBI.

¶23

Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-5476 of 2011

¶25

¶26

the investigation is complete and as the prayer of the petitioner is for filing of challan, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. of cancellation of the FIR has been prepared and the petition has become infructuous.

¶27

State claims in its reply that genuine efforts were being made to find out the truth and for the said purpose, on the orders of Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, the investigation was handed over to Devender Singh, Inspector, Incharge, Detective Staff, District Police Office, Karnal. Now, as per the status report, the investigation conducted by SHO, Police Station Chandni Bagh is stated to have been verified and found correct by ASI Shri Bhagwan. It is not evident on the record as to when the investigation of the case was taken from Inspector Devender Singh and was handed over to Shri Bhagwan, ASI. Learned State counsel has no explanation to offer in this regard. The investigation could not be taken away from Inspector Devender Singh and entrusted to ASI Shri Bhagwan. It is travesty of facts that investigation conducted by SHO, who is an officer of the rank of Inspector is verified by an officer of the rank of ASI. I find no justification for the State in handing over the investigation of this case to ASI Shri Bhagwan.

¶28

In these circumstances, none can feel satisfied with the investigation of this case, which was initially conducted by an officer of the rank of Inspector and was verified by an ASI. If the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by SHO, Police Station Chandani Bagh, it should have been entrusted to some senior officer and not even to an officer of equivalent rank as was done by Inspector General of Police, Rohtak

¶29

Crl. Misc. No.M-5476 of 2011

¶30

¶31

Range, Rohtak.

¶32

Consequently, I allow the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and direct respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, Panipat to get the matter investigated from an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶33

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶34

October 8^th , 2012 som

Bharat Bhushan Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khazan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs Director Public Instructions & Ors.

Rashpal Singh Vs M.D., Markfed, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and Ors.

Abhijeet Singh @ Ankur Likhari Vs State of Punjab

Karnailo Devi Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.