Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2589 (PNJ)

Jagdish v. State of Haryana

2010-09-08

M.M.S.BEDI

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The petitioner through the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has sought a direction to the respondent to entrust further investigation in a case FIR No.358 dated 25.06.2004, under Sections 364, 365, 368 & 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, City Hisar, to CBI, or Crime Branch and for a direction to trace the kidnapped son of the petitioner namely Raju by making all out efforts, in the interest of justice. 2. It was claimed in the petition that on 14.10.2002, the son of the petitioner had gone to the house of his brother Dharampal in Rishi Nagar, Hisar from where he was forcibly kidnapped by Nathu Ram, Mukesh, Vijinder, Priyo and Banarsi, in presence of the eye witness Lakshmi Devi. On the basis of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the FIR was registered by the police under the orders of the Court. Claiming that no steps were taken to locate the son of the petitioner, he moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Various representations submitted by the petitioner were ordered to be disposed of by an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2007. Not satisfied with the said order, this petition was filed by the petitioner for further enquiry. Pursuant to the notice issued to the State, reply has been submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Hisar, on behalf of the State of Haryana, informing that best efforts have been put in by the police of Haryana. Details of the steps taken by the police to trace the son of the petitioner have been mentioned in the reply. Subsequently a special Team was constituted as per the affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Rao, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Hisar, explaining that the said Team had made best efforts to trace the missing son of the petitioner. The photographs and pamphlets of missing son of the petitioner were again got published at different public places like Railway Station, Bus Stand, Civil Hospital etc. The said Team visited Narnaul, Rewari, Mohindergarh along with the publication of photographs of the son of the petitioner. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner for interrogation of two persons. The police had also interrogated Vijay Chaudhary and others as desired by the petitioner. It has been ensured that the search of the son of the petitioner is still on. 3. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner for interrogation of two persons. The police had also interrogated Vijay Chaudhary and others as desired by the petitioner. It has been ensured that the search of the son of the petitioner is still on. 3. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the respondent authorities have not left any stone unturned in tracing the son of the petitioner. Two accused are already facing trial. 4. This petition is disposed of with a direction that as and when any clue regarding Raju is available or at any subsequent stage commission of any cognizable offence qua any person for having kidnapped Raju is available, it will be open to the Investigating Agency to prepare a report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., and submit the same before the Court. It is also directed that in case any evidence is available with the petitioner, the same will be produced before the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. The said evidence will constitute part of the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In case any voluntary statement is made by any person before the Team constituted for the purpose or before the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, the same would be treated as a statement under Section 163 (2) Cr.P.C. and would be recorded and taken on record for the purpose of further investigation. ------------