SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the investigation of complaint dated 2.2.2014 (Annexure P -1) and application dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P -2) which inter alia disclosed commission of offences under Sections 364 -A/506 read with Section 120 -B IPC etc. by respondents No. 4 to 6 be entrusted to some independent agency other than Bhiwani Police to resist the local political influence, pressure and reaches of respondents No. 4 to 6 and preferably to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or that a Special Investigating Team may be constituted to enquire into the above -stated complaints which the petitioner has moved against respondents No. 4 to 6.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into matrimony with Usha as per Hindu Rites on 15.2.1995 at Jaipur (Rajasthan). After marriage the petitioner and his wife resided together in Bhiwani and two sons, namely; Himanshu now aged about 17 years and Punit now aged about 14 years were born out of this wedlock. It is further contended that Usha wife of the petitioner had developed illicit relations with respondent No. 4 -Nishant and in the month of January, 2008 she ran away from the house of her parents without any intimation to anyone and the matter was reported to the police. She was arrested by the police and produced before the Magistrate at Jaipur where she made a statement that she did not want to reside with the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner tried his level best to bring Usha back to his house but in vain. She treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him without any cause. The petitioner had filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage which was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 (Annexures P -3 and P -4, respectively) passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani. It is also contended that on the intervening night of 20.4.2008, Usha left the house of her parents at about 10.00 p.m. and did not return back. Efforts were made to search her but no clue could be found. DDR No. 10 dated 22.4.2008 was also got recorded in this regard. Subsequently, the petitioner and others got information that Usha was abducted by respondent No. 4 -Nishan and one Mangi Ram @ Parveen at some unknown place and they were forcibly committing rape on her.

(3.) LOOKING into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that no indulgence of this Court is required. Various options are available to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of this nature.