Ajay Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9574-2019 Date of Decision:-02.04.2026 AJAY KUMAR ......PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) 1.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for the issuance of directions to handover the investigation in FIR No.308 dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure P-1) under Section 346 IPC registered at Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad, District Faridaba to some other independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the son of the petitioner, namely Shivam, aged about 32 years, has been missing since 20.06.2017. Despite an FIR having been registered, his whereabouts has not been traced till date. Therefore, the investigation of the afore-mentioned FIR be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

3.

The learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the local police conducted the investigation and ultimately prepared an untraced report. Thereafter, on 05.05.2023, an SIT was constituted headed KUSUM 2026.04.03 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-9574-2019 -2by the DCP, Central Faridabad. The said SIT also investigated the matter and on 31.01.2025 has prepared yet another untraced report. He contends that despite the best efforts of the investigating agencies, they have not been able to find any evidence regarding the whereabouts of Shivam. 4.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 5.

A perusal of the record would reveal that Shivam, son of the petitioner, went missing on 20.06.2017. Despite strenuous efforts having been made by the investigating agencies, his whereabouts have not been found. The suspected persons have also been detained and were sent for a polygraphy test but nothing concrete came out of the same. In this view, as the occurrence pertains to the year 2017, no useful purpose would be served by referring the captioned FIR for investigation to be conducted by the CBI.

6.

In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed. 7.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 02.04.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2026.04.03 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh