Disposed¶16

Vishal Alias Rinku v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CRM-M/9935/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vishal @ Rinku v. State of Haryana and Others; CRM-M-9935-2024 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana HC; Aman Chaudhary J.; decision 05.09.2025; Section 160 CrPC notice; joined investigation 28.06.2023; polygraph test CSFL Lab Lodhi Road New Delhi; missing person Hawa Singh; petitioner not required; petition disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

On the State counsel's submission that the petitioner is not required, the Court disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous. ¶16

Vishal Alias Rinku Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

242

¶3

CRM-M-9935-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2025

Vishal @ Rinku

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *******

¶10

Present : Mr. Gaurav Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner (through hybrid mode).

¶11

Mr. Parmod Kumar, DAG Haryana.

¶12

*********

¶13

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

1 . Learned State counsel submits in view of para 8 of the reply as also the written information dated 04.09.2025 received from the Police station concerned that the petitioner is not required, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such, which read thus:-

¶15

“8. That during the course of investigation, the complainant raised suspicion of involvement of the present petitioner in missing of his father and hence notices U/s 160 Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner and hence on 28.06.2023, the petitioner was joined into investigation of the case and the matter was enquired from him, wherein he denied his involvement in the missing of Hawa Singh and in order to verify the stand of the petitioner, his Polygraph test was conducted at CSFL Lab at Lodhi Road, New Delhi but the allegations upon the petitioner were not found correct as per the Polygraph test report and hence no evidence against the petitioner or his family came forward regarding their involvement in the missing of Hawa Singh.”

¶16

Ordered accordingly.

¶17

(AMAN CHAUDHARY)

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

05.09.2025 Vishal Vardhan
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

¶20

VISHAL VARDHAN 2025.09.06 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vishal Alias Rinku v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Alias Rinku v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jarnail Singh Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Another

Bhagwati Devi Sharma Vs M/S Jatin Industries and Another

Rinku Thakur Vs M/S Mak Technologies and Others

Harpal Singh Vs State of Pb.

Gurmeet Singh Vs Sarwar