Jasmine v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : May 28, 2025 JASMINE -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Teevar Sharma, A.A.G, Punjab.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant writ petition, prayer is made for quashing the order No.5186-90/Crime/Invest:-4 dated 20.12.2023, whereby, the investigation of FIR No.206 dated 14.07.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 376, 506 of the IPC, P.S. Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, has been transferred from the respondent No.4 to the respondents No.6 and 7, on an application filed by the accused.

2.

During the course of previous hearing, it had surfaced that, proclamation proceedings have been launched against the sole accused/respondent No.8, however, despite that, his application for transfer of investigation was entertained. Resultantly, this Court became coaxed to draw the hereinafter extracted order on 21.05.2025:- "In deference to the directions, as issued by this Court, by drawing an order dated 02.04.2025, status report dated 21.05.2025, by way of an affidavit of Mr. Harmandeep Singh Hans, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, District SAS Nagar,

has been filed by the learned State counsel today, in the Court. The same is taken on the record.

The affidavit (supra), voice that on one hand, the prosecution agency has initiated P.O. proceedings, against the respondent No.8, and on the other hand, the application has been filed by the respondent No.8, on dated 24.02.2025, and after receiving the same, the Deputy Inspector General, Punjab, Ropar Range, Ropar, has marked the application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, (Headquarter), SAS Nagar, for it's verification and report.

Prima facie, this Court is of the considered view that the affidavit (supra), is self contradictory in nature, as it seems that the local police of District SAS Nagar, is hand in glove with respondent No.8.

Let the Director General of Police, Punjab, after examining the entire record of the instant matter, file his/her response by way of an affidavit, on or before the next date of hearing. He shall also apprise to this Court that despite giving numerous undertakings, before this Court, as to how, the application, as moved by the respondent No.8, has been down marked from his office, for the purpose of parallel enquiry, that too on the application of a person, against whom P.O. proceedings has already been initiated.

The affidavit, shall positively be filed on or before the next date of hearing.

In absence of compliance of the directions (supra), the Director General of Police, Punjab, is directed to cause his/her personal appearance, before this Court, on the date fixed. List this matter on 28.05.2025, for arguments. To be shown in the urgent list.

It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, no request for an adjournment on behalf of either of the parties concerned, shall be entertained."

3.

In deference to the directions embodied in the hereinabove extracted order, today the learned State counsel has filed the affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Yadav, IPS, Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh,

which is taken on record. Copy of the affidavit is supplied also to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

The affidavit (supra) makes disclosure that, (i) the accused/respondent No.8 has already been arrested; (ii) investigation stands completed; and (iii) the Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has also been presented before the Illaqa Magistrate on 27.05.2025. 5.

Moreover, the learned State counsel informs this Court that, there was no recommendation on the part of the office of the Director General of Police, Punjab, for conducting parallel inquiry, rather the application made by the respondent No.8 was merely down marked for apt action.

6.

On account of the supervening events (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, petitioner's grievance stands redressed, hence he does not want to press the instant writ petition at this stage.

7.

Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed, as not pressed at this stage.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) May 28, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No