POOJA PATHANIA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's brother is missing since 30.1.2013. FIR No. 41 of 2013 dated 7.2.2013 under Sections 364 and 365 IPC was registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of 5 witnesses, interrogated 56 persons and searched the missing/kidnapped person in several States. The investigation of the case has been entrusted to the State Criminal Investigation Department by the order of Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. The investigation was carried out by Sh. Manohar Lal (HPS), Dy. Superintendent of Police, CID Unit, Mandi.

(2.) THE FIR was registered on 7.2.2013 and by now, all out efforts should have been made to trace out the brother of the petitioner. The investigation must be carried out promptly in order to nab the culprits. The valuable evidence is lost if the investigation is not prompt. Mr. Parshotam Chaudhary, Advocate, submits that the investigation being tardy, may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India, has no objection to the same.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others versus Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, : (2002) 5 SCC 521 have held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation against a person only if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does discloses a prima facie calling for an investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation or any other similar agency. Their Lordships have held as under: