PUSHPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to transfer the investigation of FIR No. 105, dated 23.8.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302, IPC, registered at Police Station, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent No. 4) or any other independent agency as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to investigate the matter and arrest the accused.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ravinder Minhas, husband of the petitioner, Pushpa Devi, was an Ex-serviceman. He was running a shop in his village, Jhingla. On 22.8.2013, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., while he was coming to his house after closing his shop, then some unidentified persons killed him and threw his dead body into a canal near Power House No. 4. The personal belongings, i.e. mobile phone and cash etc. of Ravinder Minhas were found missing.

(3.) The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 105, dated 23.8.2013, for the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Mukerian. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not investigate the matter in a scientific manner and, as such, the culprits could not be trapped. He further submitted that the petitioner had disclosed the names of Ankush, Raka and Daljit, residents of village Pandori, but the investigating agency failed to take action against them. The petitioner and her relatives met the higher police authorities, but no proper action was initiated against the culprits. It was also submitted that initially the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, took cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner, but later on the basis of the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, filed the complaint. The petitioner had even approached the Hon'ble President and Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, despite that no action was taken against the culprits. He further submitted that despite presenting several representations, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to carry out the proper investigation in the present case. He submitted that the matter be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme in the matter of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 2 SCC 409.