High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6711/2018disposed of

Urmila v. State Of Haryana And Others

2020-02-24Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 6711 of 2018 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 6711 of 2018 Date of Decision: 24.2.2020 Urmila ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Ms. Avneet K. Brar, Advocate for Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Vijay Pal.

Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for CBI-respondent No. 4.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the respondents to transfer the investigation of FIR No. 271 dated 21.7.2014 under Sections 452/307/34 IPC (Section 302 IPC added later on) and Sections 25/25/(54)59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Dadri City, District Bhiwani to CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the local police should have tried to locate the assailants through the CCTV cameras installed in the locality and collect the data/tower location of all the active mobile phones in the locality. However, no such process had been adopted by the police creating the very dent in the investigation conducted by the police.

GURPREET SINGH 2020.02.27 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh Learned counsel for the CBI-respondent No. 4 submits that the

CRM-M No. 6711 of 2018 -2present case does not fall within the ambit of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal versus Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, 2010 (3) SCC 571, for issuing direction to CBI to conduct investigation/transfer the case to CBI in a case concerned and reiterated that such an order should not be passed as a matter of routine merely because a party has levelled allegations against the local police.

As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, DSP, Charkhi Dadri, investigation was carried out by different agencies of the police but the accused could not be traced out and hence, untraced report was filed way-back on 28.9.2015.

Keeping in view the above, no case for issuing direction is made out.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE February 24, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2020.02.27 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh