Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 508 of 2021
.
Decided on: 15.03.2021.
Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondents : M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur
and Sanjeev Sood, Additional
r Advocate General with M/s Kamal
Kant Chandel and Divya Sood,
Deputy Advocate Generals for
respondents No. 1 to 4.
: None for other respondents.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus
may kindly be issued to the respondents No. 2 to
hand over the investigation to a independent
Authority or of the rank of SP (Superintendent of
Police), so that proper investigation be conducted in
the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
(ii) That the investigating authority may kindly be
directed to insert proper sections of I.P.C. in view of
.
the factual position of spot, so that the fair
investigation will be conducted and the action be
initiated against the accused persons/respondents
No. 5 to 10.
(iii) That respondents No. 5 to 10 may kindly be
directed to pay the damages accrued to the petitioner
by way of their illegal act omission and commission.
(iv) Any other and further relief which this Hon'ble
Court may deems fit and proper may also be passed
in favour of the petitioner."
2. The events which led to the lodging of the FIR in
issue and filing of this petition are the alleged breaking into
the shop of the petitioner on the night of 26.12.2020
purportedly by the private respondents herein and alleged
inaction on the part of the police authorities after lodging of
the FIR by the petitioner with the police.
3. A perusal of the reply filed to the petition
demonstrates that in para 10 thereof, it is mentioned that
respondents No. 8 to 10 have appeared in the Police Station
for the purpose of investigation as they were served notice
under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Further in para 12 of the reply, it has been mentioned that
during the investigation of the case, it has come on record
.
that offence of house breaking by night in order to commit
offence punishable with imprisonment has been committed
by the accused persons, and inadvertently, Section 448 of the
Indian Penal Code instead of Section 457 of the IPC was
incorporated in the FIR. However, offence under Section 457
of the IPC was added and Section 448 stands deleted.
4. Be that as it may, as learned Additional Advocate
General has assured the Court that the investigation in the
case is being carried out in a free and fair manner, this writ
petition is being closed as this Court does not wants to
adversely affect the investigation by making any observation.
Suffice it to say that investigation should be carried out in a
fair manner and in case anyone including the petitioner is
aggrieved by the mode and manner in which the investigation
is carried out, then they shall have all rights in law to raise
their grievance in this regard.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so
also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
March 15, 2021 Judge
(narender)
