Angrejo Devi v. State Of Haryana & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-42622 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.5.2015 Angrejo Devi --Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Haryana and others --Respondents.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. M.K.Sangwan, DAG, Haryana.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) CRM No. 17033 of 2015 Applicant seeks to place on record copy of final report dated 15.2.2014 in FIR No. 108 dated 25.1.2014 under Section 323/506/341/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Panipat City. Criminal Misc. No. M-42622 of 2014 Petitioner, by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks direction to the official respondents to take appropriate action against respondents No. 6 to 9.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by

way of affidavit dated 23.1.2015 was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that averments taken in para 6 of the petition referring to the photographs and CCTV footage at Annexure P-4, have not at all been answered by the official respondents in their corresponding paragraphs No. 6 of the reply filed. He further submits that let the Superintendent of Police, Panipat-respondent No.2 be directed to look into the matter and get an effective enquiry conducted. Thereafter, let appropriate action be taken, in accordance with law.

When confronted with the CCTV footage contained in Annexure P-4 referred to in para 6 of the petition, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Vinod Kumar, Police Station City Panipat, could not deny the factual aspect of the matter, which is reflected in CCTV footage and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-looked by respondent No.2 himself. It is so said, because it seems that the concerned officials have not rightly instructed respondent No.2 in this regard, because of which the reply has been filed without referring to the CCTV footage contained in Annexure P-4 and the reply has not been found to be satisfactory by this Court as well.

In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat-respondent No.2 to get an effective enquiry conducted under his own supervision.

record by the petitioner, including the CCTV footage. After getting an effective enquiry conducted, respondent No.2 shall take an appropriate action at an early date by passing an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, present petition stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this order, under the signatures of the Special Secretary, attached to this Bench, be given dasti to learned counsel for the State, for onward transmission to concerned authority, for compliance thereof.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 21.5.2015 AK Sharma