Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mandeep Kaur vs State Of H.P. And Others on 16 November, 2017
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 182 of 2017
Date of decision: 16.11.2017
Mandeep Kaur
.
Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 yes
For the petitioner:
For the respondents:
r to
Mr. Shanti Swaroop, Advocate.
Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Addl. A.G.for
Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Devyani
Sharma, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)
In F.I.R. bearing No. 5 registered, at Mahila Police Station, Baddi, the complainant/ petitioner herein reared allegations against respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 qua theirs, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2017 23:03:44 :::HCHP 2committing offences, embodied, in Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. In pursuance, to, the lodging of the aforesaid .
F.I.R, the Investigating Officer concerned, with utmost promptitude, proceeded to recover items of Istridhan, from respondent No.5. The aforesaid seizure occurred on 23.3.2017, in respect whereof, a seizure memo stood prepared, copy whereof is appended with the instant petition, as annexure R-3. In the reply on affidavit furnished by the State, it is ear-
marked, that, at the time of preparation of seizure memo, on 23.3.2017, the complainant/petitioner being also present AND also hers identifying all the items of Istridhan embodied therein. Subsequently on 17.05.2017, the complainant has instituted the instant petition, before this Court, wherewith ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2017 23:03:44 :::HCHP 3 she has appended an additional list of Istridhan items, items whereof she contends, to remain yet un-recovered, by the Investigating Officer, .
from the accused concerned. Hence a prayer is made for the investigation(s) being ordered to be transferred from respondent No.3, given his not holding fair investigations therein.
2. However, the preparation of the list appended with the writ petition AND bearing annexure P-3, appears, to be a sequel of sheer contrivance besides stratagem, deployed by her given (a) The aforesaid items being un- enumerated in the F.I.R (b) the State of H.P. with its reply appending annexure R-4, annexure whereof stood prepared on 23.3.2017 itself (c) at the time of its preparation, the purported items of Istridhan, mentioned herein, not, finding their enumeration therein (d) ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2017 23:03:44 :::HCHP 4 thereupon this fact of theirs being purportedly, not returned viz-a-viz her, is, obviously engineered by sheer afterthought, for only .
maligning, the investigation(s) conducted by the I.O. Consequently, the prayer made by the petitioner, for the transfer of investigation(s) from respondent No.3, is not properly constituted, hence is declined. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have also been prayed to be arrested, whereas, no allegations, for their arrest, arising from theirs committing any non-
bailable offence, stands, embodied either in any apposite complaint or in any F.I.R lodged with the Police Station concerned. Even if the petitioner still intends, to, make a prayer for their arrest, she is enjoined to prior thereto, make apposite motion(s) before the authority(s) concerned, whereas hers not ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2017 23:03:44 :::HCHP 5 making the apposite motion hence constrains, this Court to also decline the aforesaid relief to her. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
alongwith all pending applications.
16th November, 2017. (Sureshwar Thakur) ™ Judge.
r to
::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2017 23:03:44 :::HCHP