Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanta Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -1-
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 24.02.2025
Kanta Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ambika Sood, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 5.
Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate with
Mr. Phool Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No. 6.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate
for CBI-respondent No. 7.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. Petitioner Kanta Devi filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for issuance of
directions to respondents No. 2 and 3 to trace the whereabouts of missing
daughter of petitioner, who has been missing since 08.08.2016, as her life
is in eminent danger at the hands of private respondents No. 5 and 6, who
have not been associated into investigation by respondent No. 3, despite the
fact his daughter was last seen in the company of said private respondents,
with further prayer to issue directions to respondent No. 2 to ensure fair
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -2-
and impartial investigation in FIR No. 876 dated 09.08.2016 under Section
365 of IPC registered at Police Station Chandani Bagh, Panipat (Annexure
P-2) and to protect life and liberty of petitioner and her family members,
since after the disappearance of her daughter, they are receiving threats for
dire consequences.
2. As per the facts of case, petitioner Kanta Devi filed application
to Incharge, Police Post Sector 29, Panipat dated 08.08.2016 (Annexure P-
1) giving information that her daughter namely Anu Kumari left the house
i.e. NFL House No. A-359 allotted in the name of her husband who is
working in CISF, West Bengal, for going to the shop of Vishal for
collecting stitched clothes and she did not return home till date. She
inquired from the friends and relatives to trace the whereabouts of her
daughter but failed. She gave description of her daughter Anu Kumari age
20 years, wearing Orange colour Kurta, Blue colour lower and Blue colour
Chappal, having fair complexion, height 5’6″ and also disclosed her mobile
phone No. 9050377881. On the basis of this application, subsequently FIR
No. 0876 dated 09.08.2016 was registered under Section 365 of IPC at
Police Station Chandnibagh, District Panipat (Annexure P-2).
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that daughter of
petitioner namely Anu Kumari was student of B.Com 3rd year, studying in
I.B. College, Panipat. On 08.08.2016, she left the house at about 03:00 PM
along with her brother Shubham for going to a cloth shop at Panipat. He
dropped his sister and left for tuition. Petitioner was under the impression
that Anu will return home after collecting clothes, however, she did not
return home. She made inquiry from the shopkeeper, who disclosed that
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -3-
Anu did not come to the shop. Even her phone was unreachable.
Thereafter, she gave representation in the office of respondent No. 4
(Annexure P-1). Petitioner was given assurance that her daughter will
return home. She shared photograph and number of her daughter with
police. On the next day, FIR No. 876 dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure P-2)
(supra) was registered. Police authorities did not investigate the case in a
proper manner and they kept on telling that it was a case of runaway
marriage and soon her daughter would inform her or would come to the
police along with some order passed by competent Court. Petitioner was
sure in her mind that her daughter was kidnapped by some persons and she
suspected foul play. Police authorities refused to probe the matter.
Thereafter, petitioner along with her husband and other family members
started making inquiry about the whereabouts of her daughter from friends
of her daughter and they came to know that her daughter was last seen in
the company of respondent No. 5 who is a married man having two
children and respondent No. 6 whose details were provided by friends of
her daughter. Petitioner immediately approached the office of respondent
No. 3 to interrogate aforesaid private respondents but police did not pay
any heed to their request. Finding no other alternative, she along with her
husband went to the house of private respondents to inquire about the
whereabouts of their daughter. Said private respondents pleaded ignorance
about the whereabouts of their daughter. Later on, she and her husband
came to know that respondent No. 5 had accompanied their daughter to
New Delhi on 01.08.2016 where he had taken her to the house of one
Deepak. They further came to know that on 04.08.2016, respondent no. 6
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -4-
also accompanied their daughter to New Delhi to the house of said Deepak,
who was staying in rented accommodation. It came to their notice that
respondents No. 5 and 6 had a fight between themselves over the daughter
of petitioner and respondent No. 6 even assaulted her daughter. Petitioner
managed to get call detail record of her daughter and it was further
revealed that there were frequent exchange of calls between her daughter
and respondent No. 5. These facts were brought to the knowledge of
respondent No. 3. Even then no action was taken and she was told in a
casual manner that they were investigating the matter. There were frequent
calls made by respondents No. 5 and 6 on 07.08.2016 and 08.08.2016.
Petitioner and her husband confronted private respondents about the said
calls and in return they started threatening the petitioner and her family
members with dire consequences. Petitioner became suspicious about the
involvement of respondents No. 5 and 6 in the disappearance of her
daughter. Upon their repeated requests, respondent No. 3 called private
respondents to police station where they admitted the fact that they had
accompanied victim to New Delhi to the house of one Deepak. Thereafter,
police authorities abruptly stopped the probe in this matter. Petitioner along
with her husband went to the house of said Deepak and after meeting him,
they became more suspicious about the involvement of private respondents
No. 5 and 6. They also started receiving threats from private respondents.
Respondent No. 5 told them that he was coming to their house along with
10-15 persons to settle the dispute. Police was informed, but that night
respondent No. 5 did not come. Petitioner had also given representation to
Superintendent of Police, Panipat dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P-3). Till
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -5-
date, whereabouts of her daughter are not known. Petitioner has strong
apprehension that private respondents No. 5 and 6 are responsible for
alleged disappearance of her daughter. Police authorities wasted crucial
time and carried on investigation in an unscientific manner. Chances of
tracing out of victim became negligible on account of lapse on the part of
police. Ultimately, petitioner filed present petition.
4. Notice of petition was given to official respondents as well as
private respondents. Official respondents filed their status report regarding
investigation carried out by them from time to time. Respondents No. 5 and
6 also put up their appearance through their respective counsel(s). As per
order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench, Standing Counsel
for CBI also put in his appearance and filed his reply to present petition
regarding transfer of investigation in present case to CBI for tracing out
Anu Kumari daughter of present petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner argued present petition as per
the facts detailed in petition and pointed out that no proper investigation
was carried out by official respondents No. 2 to 4. Matter was reported to
police immediately on the same date but official respondents treated
complaint in a casual manner and did not inquire the matter in a proper
manner. Petitioner along with her husband and family members started the
probe and when they came across the names of private respondents No. 5
and 6, again police was informed but no concrete steps were taken by the
police to inquire the matter from private respondents. Seeing the conduct of
official respondents No. 2 to 4 as referred above, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that investigation in this case may be handed over to
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -6-
CBI to trace out the victim Anu Kumari and to find out the persons who are
responsible for missing of daughter of petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing official
respondents No. 2 to 4 referred to status reports filed by them from time to
time. There is status report dated 16.09.2016 filed by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter Panipat in which it was mentioned
that call detail record of Anu Kumari was obtained. Investigating Officer
met one person namely Sumit who disclosed that he had seen Anu Kumari
near her house in Vikas Nagar on 11.08.2016, whereas, she got missing on
08.08.2016. Police inquired about respondent No. 5 Ajit Rathi and came to
know that Anu Kumari used to fetch milk from his dairy farm in Vikas
Nagar and both of them developed relationship. It also came into light that
Anu Kumari also worked as Teacher in Green Heritage School, run by
father of said Ajit Rathi. It was also confirmed that on 01.08.2016, said Ajit
Rathi accompanied Anu Kumari to Delhi to bring Rs. 10,000/- from
Deepak. Regarding Sumit again it is mentioned in status report that he was
student of B.Tech and his father was working in N.F.L. He also developed
friendship with Anu Kumari and wanted to marry her. He allegedly
provided financial aid to Anu Kumari. On 03.08.2016, he saw selfie of Anu
and Ajit in her mobile phone and got angry. It is also confirmed that on
04.08.2016, he had also accompanied Anu to Delhi for going to the house
of Deepak. At this stage, it was reported that Investigating Agency could
not find any clue about abduction of Anu Kumari by somebody.
Again another status report dated 18.02.2017 was filed by
Deputy Superintendent of Police (H.Q.) Panipat, District Panipat, where it
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -7-
was reported that in aforesaid FIR No. 876 dated 09.08.2016 (supra),
accused Sumit Nandal – respondent No. 6 was arrested under Section 354-
D(1)(i)(ii), 506 of IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act. It was further made
clear that Investigating Officer failed to trace Anu Kumari. At this stage, on
the directions of this Court, mobile phone produced by petitioner was taken
into police possession and it was sent to Cyber Cell office. The Incharge,
Cyber Cell produced 24 pages containing messages and 6 pages of
Facebook which were taken into police possession. Said messages were
sent by creating account in the name of Seema Rani No. +917015823331
and Facebook chat in the name of Seema Rani were also annexed with
report. Subsequently, status report dated 15.03.2017, status report dated
10.07.2018 were filed, confirming the facts earlier mentioned in status
report. Apart from this, it was further found that IP address of mobile phone
No. 9813275199 was found to be used by father of missing girl. According
to antecedents of Sumit Nandal – respondent No. 6, he was involved in
another FIR No. 597 dated 15.11.2013 under Section 302, 324, 307, 354-B,
120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Samalkha, Panipat. Again status
report dated 20.09.2018 and status report dated 25.09.2019 were filed
giving detail of efforts made by Investigating Agency to trace out the
victim by distributing pamphlets, showing photographs in different cities of
U.P, Rajasthan, H.P., Chandigarh, Bihar etc. Special Investigating Team
(SIT) was also constituted to trace out the victim. During the pendency of
present petition, status reports dated 05.11.2019 and 14.01.2020 were filed,
to conduct Polygraph test of petitioner, her son Shubham and private
respondents No. 5 and 6. Along with status report dated 31.01.2024,
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -8-
Polygraph Examination Report dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure R-1) is also
filed in Court.
Learned counsel representing official respondents No. 2 to 4
pointed out that thorough investigation was carried out by police to trace
out Anu Kumari daughter of petitioner but she could not be traced out.
Regarding the complaint of petitioner, on completion of investigation
challan is already presented against respondent No. 6 in aforesaid FIR
under Section 354, 506 of IPC and under the provisions of SC/ST Act.
Therefore, petition filed by petitioner is without any basis and there is no
requirement to transfer the investigation to CBI.
7. Learned counsel representing CBI, Chandigarh filed reply
denying the facts for want to knowledge. Even the counsel representing
CBI did not show interest to take over the investigation in this case by
alleging that CBI has limited manpower and resources and is already over-
burdened with investigation of cases entrusted by this Court. The case in
hand does not fall within the purview of guidelines laid down by Supreme
Court of India in case titled “State of West Bengal & Ors. Versus The
Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengals & Ors.”
2010(3) SCC 571. The Supreme Court has emphasized that transfer of
investigation to CBI may be done in cases where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the
incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an
order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing
fundamental rights. In reply, it is further prayed that in view of the facts
and circumstances of case, Court may pass appropriate order as it deem fit
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -9-
in the interest of justice.
8. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of case, it is
evident that Anu Kumari daughter of petitioner Kanta Devi got missing on
08.08.2016 when she was dropped by her brother Shubham in the market at
about 03:00 PM and thereafter, she never returned home. Petitioner filed
representation to Incharge, Police Post Sector 29, Panipat (Annexure P-1)
on the same day. On hue and cry raised by petitioner and her family
members, FIR No. 876 dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) (supra) was
registered. Dissatisfied with investigation carried out by respondents No. 2
to 4, Kanta Devi – petitioner filed present petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. on 17.08.2016. Facts narrated in petition clearly indicate that
Investigating Agency took representation filed by petitioner in a casual
manner, as a result petitioner along with her husband and other family
members tried to search Anu Kumari at their own level. They managed to
get call detail record and inquired the matter from friends of Anu Kumari,
as a result came to know about respondents No. 5 and 6 who were in touch
with Anu Kumari. Petitioner was running pillar to post seeking justice for
her daughter. There are status reports called from time to time during the
pendency of present petition and till date official respondents filed nine
status reports as referred above and during this entire period failed to locate
the whereabouts of Anu Kumari nor could reach at any logical conclusion.
9. It is kept in mind that Supreme Court has held time and again
that power to transfer investigation must be used sparingly. Gainful
reference can be made to the judgment of Supreme Court of India (Large
Bench) case titled “State of West Bengal & Ors. Versus The Committee
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -10-
For Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengals & Ors.” 2010(3)
SCC 571, relevant Paras No. 45 and 46 runs as under :-
“45. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred
is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to
investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed within the territory of a State without the consent of
that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the
Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power
and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties
of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only
the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and
under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously
and vigilantly.
46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the
Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on
the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude
of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in
its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to
the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned,
although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide
whether or not such power should be exercised but time and
again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be
passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has
levelled some allegations against the local police.
This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -11-
and international ramifications or where such an order
may be necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI
would be flooded with a large number of cases and with
limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its
credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations.”
While dealing with direction matter for transfer of
investigation from one agency to other, it is to be assessed as to current
Investigating Agency portrayed inadequacy in investigation or prima facie
appeared to be biased. Investigating Agency is required to investigate each
case in a professional and ethical manner. Deficiency in investigation can
be perceived from the facts and circumstances of case and manner in which
investigation was handled by Investigating Agency.
Supreme Court of India in case titled “Bharati Tamang
Versus Union of India and others” 2014 CriLJ 156, in Para No. 37
explained extraordinary and exceptional circumstances requiring
reinvestigation, which runs as under :-
“37. From the various decisions relied upon by the petitioner
counsel as well as by respondents counsel, the following
principles can be culled out.
(a) The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy.
(b) Unless there is an express or implied constitutional
prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of even an
illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.
(c) If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or
can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -12-
realities or covering the obvious deficiency, Courts have to
deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the
framework of law.
(d) It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to
ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so
that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
(e) In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried
on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can
even constitute Special Investigation Team and also give
appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments
and other authorities to give all required assistance to such
specially constituted investigating team in order to book the
real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution.
(f) While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other
instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special
Investigation Team, the High Court or this Court can also
monitor such investigation in order to ensure proper conduct
of the prosecution.
(g) In appropriate cases even if the charge-sheet is filed it is
open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct
investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any
other independent agency in order to do complete justice.
(h) In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to prevent
miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may
direct for investigation de novo.”
10. Facts of the case as detailed in petition clearly indicate that
initially there was reluctance on the part of Investigating Agency to probe
the facts detailed in representation dated 08.08.2016 (Annexure P-1).
During the pendency of present petition, status reports are filed and
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -13-
suddenly without recovery of Anu Kumari daughter of petitioner, challan is
presented under Section 354-D, 506 of IPC and under the provisions of
SC/ST Act, by leaving aside the probe regarding missing of Anu Kumari
daughter of petitioner. It has come in status report dated 05.11.2019 and
14.01.2020 when Special Investigating Team took the decision to conduct
Polygraph test on the petitioner Kanta Devi, her son Shubham on the one
hand and private respondents Ajit Rathi and Sumit Nandal respondents
No.5 and 6 on the other hand. Polygraph Examination Report conducted by
Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana is Annexure R-
3. As per report pertaining to Sumit Kumar, Kanta Devi and Shubham,
Polygraph examination and analysis of polygrams were found to be truthful
pertaining to same questions asked to them. However, regarding Ajit Rathi
respondent No. 5, his response of issues No. 1, 2 and 4 was deceptive and
regarding issue No. 3 no opinion was given. Despite aforesaid report, no
further investigation was carried out. No doubt Polygraph test cannot be
considered as an evidence but it can be considered as an expert opinion
which can help the Investigating Agency to move in a particular direction
to conduct further investigation. But in the case in hand, Investigating
Agency concluded the investigation by presenting challan under the
provisions of Section 354-D, 506 of IPC and under the provisions of SC/ST
Act.
11. In the light of aforesaid factual position, it is evident that
Investigating Agency conducted investigation in a casual manner. Facts and
circumstances of case are covered under exceptional circumstances, when
Court in order to prevent miscarriage of justice should direct transfer of
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:027570
CRM-M-28762-2016 (O&M) -14-
investigation to CBI – respondent No. 7 to discover the truth. Ultimate
purpose of transfer of investigation is to uphold justice delivery system.
Therefore, official respondents No. 2 to 4 are directed to transfer all records
including material and evidence i.e. all statements recorded in the case to
respondent No. 7 – CBI within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of
this order, with further direction to respondent No. 7 – CBI to assign the
matter to an appropriate officer for expeditious investigation of matter in
accordance with law.
With aforesaid observation, present petition is accordingly,
disposed of.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly as well.
24.02.2025 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2025 21:38:24 :::
[ad_1]
Source link