Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepika Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:11.03.2025
Deepika Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Advocate (through VC) and
Mr. Siddharth Sarup, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to issue directions to the official
respondents to conduct further investigation in a case FIR No. 0139
dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 148, 149, 201, 302,
323, 325, 427 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Bhupani,
District Faridabad. A further prayer has been made to appoint a
competent impartial team to ensure that the investigation is conducted
effectively, without any external influence.
2. The complainant in the present case is widow of Mohit
Yadav, who was killed at around mid night of 25/26.10.2022 in his
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -2-
village. Ultimately, FIR No. 0139 dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P-2)
under Sections 148, 149, 201, 302, 323, 325, 427 and 120-B IPC
Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad was ordered to be
registered on the basis of the statement made by the present
petitioner/complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argued that the police had not conducted investigation fairly and
crucial evidence in the present case was deliberately overlooked.
Even, the evidence at the spot was tampered by the police in collusion
with the accused and the investigation was compromised at various
levels. Even, the police had made the arrest of the accused selectively
and the petitioner has not been able to lead her life peacefully as she
has well founded apprehension that she may also be eliminated by the
accused in the present case. Further, it was also apparent that SI
Surender Singh, who had conducted investigation was constantly in
the touch with the accused in the present case and the investigation
was conducted in the most unfair manner, by completely overlooking
the interests of the prosecution. The petitioner also tried to apprise the
higher police authorities of the aforesaid facts and requested them to
ensure a fair investigation and to further ensure that all the accused
were booked for committing a heinous crime. Even, there was a clear
cut motive with the accused as few months ago, Abhishek, Raj
Kumar, Sanjay and other co-accused had got into heated arguments
and scuffled with Mohit Yadav (since deceased).
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -3-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that all
the accused were taken into custody and in their statements, they had
admitted the deadly assault. Even, from a perusal of the statements of
all the accused, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-3), it
was evident that all the accused had admitted the deadly assault and
had confessed that the entire family was involved in killing of
husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that Vikas
Chauhan, accused, was constantly in touch with the police personnel
including the SHO, Police Station Bhupani prior to the commission of
the crime and even thereafter. Even, he was in touch with ASI Dinesh
also over phone and several calls were made by him on
25/26.10.2022. Learned counsel further submitted that the CDR
reports further established that a press reporter namely, S.S. Rathore
was constantly in touch with Vikas, accused and had influenced the
process of investigation in the present case. Even, as per the CDR
report, accused Vikas was present at the place of the occurrence prior
to the occurrence and he also visited the place of occurrence on the
next day.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the
postmortem report (Annexure P-7), Mohit Yadav (since deceased) had
suffered only two injuries on his person whereas from the CCTV
footage, it was apparent that the deceased had been inflicted many
injuries by approximately 20 assailants and even the postmortem
report also raises serious questions over the investigation and the
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -4-
postmortem report was prepared by the doctors at the instance of the
police officers. Even, the CCTV footage was collected by the police,
which clearly showed that more than one accused was seen assaulting
the victims with the shining sharp edged weapons/swords etc.,
However, no such injuries reflected in the postmortem report. Larned
counsel further submitted that the police officials were constantly in
touch with the accused in the present case and the police had taken no
initiative to arrest them or to locate them in the nearby places. Still
further, even after the occurrence, the petitioner was being constantly
threatened by the accused in the present case and the local police and
the accused may eliminate the petitioner as well. The petitioner also
submitted various reports to the Commissioner of Police as well as
the DGP, Haryana, but her requests fell on deaf ears.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed a
detailed status report by way of an affidavit of the Deputy
Commissioner of Police (Crime), Faridabad and the same was taken
on record. Learned State counsel vehemently argued that on getting
the information on 26.10.2022 regarding two persons, who were lying
unconscious and injured condition, the police had reached at the given
address without any delay. The petitioner moved a written complaint
to the police and on the basis of her complaint only, the FIR was
promptly registered by the police. After registration of the case, the
investigation was set into motion and statements of various witnesses
were recorded. Even, the postmortem report (Annexure R-1) was got
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -5-
prepared by the police from a board of three doctors of Civil Hospital,
Faridabad and as per the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death in
this case was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to the vital
organs, i.e., brain and the injuries were antemortem in nature and
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
6. During the course of investigation, the police arrested
accused on 26.10.2022 and a bamboo stick was recovered from him.
Mukesh and Kunal @ Chirag were arrested on 03.11.2022 and
28.11.2022. Mukesh, accused suffered a disclosure statement
regarding the involvement of Karan, accused and Section 120-B IPC
was added. Kunal @ Chirag was arrested on 28.11.2022 and a mobile
phone make OPPO, which was used in the crime was recovered.
Mohit son of Karan Singh was summoned on 30.11.2022 and was
interrogated and the CCTV footage of the incident was obtained from
him. Rahul Chauhan was arrested on 03.12.2022 and the stick which
was used in the commission was recovered from him. Sumit and
Vishal were arrested on 07.12.2022 whereas Shubham Chauhan and
Nishant Chauhan were arrested on 22.12.2022. Sanjay accused was
arrested on 16.01.2023 and a stick was recovered from him. After the
completion of investigation, the first report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was presented against the accused on 23.01.2023. Later on, Vinay,
Akash, Harash and Raj Kumar @ Bhola were arrested and bamboo
sticks were recovered from them. Another juvenile (name withheld)
was apprehended on 05.04.2023 and Raj Kumar @ Bohla was
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -6-
arrested on 18.04.2023. Again, supplementary charge sheet against
Vinay, Akash, Harsh and Raj Kumar @ Bhola was filed on
09.05.2023. After presentation of challan, the trial Court framed the
charge against the accused on 06.09.2023 and the case was listed for
prosecution evidence. Even thereafter, Abhishek co-accused was
arrested on 12.01.2024, Vikas @ Sonu and Lokesh @ Lucky were
were also arrested on 21.03.2024 and the challan was presented
against them on 14.06.2024. Learned State counsel vehemently
argued that in the present case, after completion of the investigation
against 17 accused and 1 juvenile, charge sheet had been submitted
against all the accused. Even, the sealed parcels were sent to forensic
science laboratory and as per the report received from RFSL, Bhondsi
(Gurugram), blood had been detected on bamboo stick, T-shirt,
slippers, underwear, jacket and lower. Learned State counsel further
submitted that in the present case, the charge sheet were filed on
23.01.2023 and 02.05.2023 and charge was framed by the trial Court
on 06.09.2023 whereas the petitioner has filed the present petition,
seeking fair investigation on 02.09.2024 after a long and unexplained
delay. Even, the petitioner had not provided any reasonable
explanation for further investigation. He further contended that still at
this stage the further investigation was conducted by a special
investigation team as one of the accused has not been arrested so far.
7. Learned State counsel further submitted that it has been
falsely alleged that the police was in touch with the accused in
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -7-
connection with the investigation of the present case. In fact, Kanika
daughter of Mukesh Chauhan had submitted a complaint at Police
Station Bhupani and she had provided the number of accused Vikas
Chauhan to the Investigating Officer of the said complaint. Kanika,
complainant, had levelled allegations against Mohit Yadav, since
deceased. In fact, Mohit Yadav, since deceased and his accomplices
had quarreled with sister-in-law of Kanika by trespassing in their
house in a Baleno car. The police also reached at the spot, but Mohit
Yadav (since deceased) had already fled the spot. Kanika and her
sister-in-law Sneha were taken to Civil Hospital Faridabad by their
family members for medical examination and the police was called.
Vikas Chauhan, accused had made phone calls to Surender Singh,
SHO of the police station with regard to the complaint submitted by
Kanika. Even, SI Surender Singh had contacted Vikas Chauhan to
trace the culprits of the present case and persuaded him to bring the
accused to the police station. Even, the police had interrogated S.S.
Rathore, who had no connection with the investigation of the present
case. Learned State counsel further submitted that in the present case,
the police had conducted the investigation in a fair and impartial
manner and the petitioner has failed to point out any shortcomings in
the investigation. Even, the police has already taken action against 18
accused and the incriminating evidence/weapons of offence have
already been collected by the police and it has been wrongly alleged
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -8-
that the police was hand in glove with the accused. Consequently, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone
through the record with their valuable assistance and bestowed
thoughts over the entire matter.
9. The law with regard to the transfer of investigation to
some independent Investigating Agency or to some senior police
officers is no more res integra and is now well settled. In fact, the
power of transferring the investigation to some independent agency or
to order further investigation must be exercised in rare and
exceptional cases where the Court finds it necessary in order to do
justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public
mind, or where the investigation by the State police lacks credibility
and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete
investigation" particularly, when it is imperative to retain public
confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies. At the same
time, it was ruled that where the investigation has already been
completed and charge sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior Courts
should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open to the
court, where the charge sheet has been filed, to proceed with the
matter in accordance with law. Under no circumstances, should the
court make any expression of its opinion on merit relating to any
accusation against any individual/accused. It was also held that the
High Court has vast powers to refer the matter to an independent
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -9-
agency under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and
Section 482 Cr.PC, if exceptional case is made out, even after the
submission of final police report (challan) in order to secure the ends
of justice. However, despite wide powers while passing such order,
the Courts must bear in mind certain self imposed limitations on the
exercise of these constitutional/statutory powers. Similarly, it was
ruled that the very plenitude of such power requires great caution in
its exercise. It should not be exercised in a routine manner or only
because a party has leveled some allegations against the local police.
10. Sequelly, the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengals and others 2010(2)
RCR (Criminal) 141: 2010(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 664:
(2010) 3 SCC 571, after considering the relevant legal provisions and
the earlier judgments, ruled as under (para 70) :-
"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
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -10-
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 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."
11. In the present case also, it is apparent from the record
that immediately on getting the information regarding the crime, the
police swung into action and the FIR was registered by the police on
the basis of the complaint moved by the present petitioner, with
promptitude. Thereafter, the police collected the incriminating
evidence from the spot and the postmortem report (Annexure R-1)
was got conducted from a board of doctors of Civil Hospital,
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -11-
Faridabad. Even, the MLR of Naveen injured was prepared and
immediately thereafter, the police started arresting the accused on the
day of registration of the FIR itself and Karan, accused was arrested
on 26.10.2022 itself and a bamboo stick was from him. Even, the
police had arrested 18 accused in the present case including one
juvenile and had also arrested Vikas Chauhan, who was also allegedly
in touch with the police officials. Consequently, the arguments raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner seemed to be based on some
speculative apprehension. Still further, it has also been found that
Kanika and her sister-in-law had also moved complaint against Mohit
Yadav, since deceased/victim in the present case and Kanika had
provided the mobile number of Vikas Chauhan in the present case.
Consequently, Vikas Chauhan, was in touch with the police official, to
ensure action against the culprits, who were named by Kanika and her
sister-in-law. Apart from that, several accused were involved in the
present case and the police had made phone calls to Vikas Chauhan,
only to persuade the accused to surrender before the concerned
authorities and when they did not surrender, all the accused were
arrested by the police. Still further, from a perusal of the record, it is
apparent that the police had fairly conducted the investigation,
arrested the main accused, collected the evidence and even traced the
indicational motive to commit the murder of Mohit Yadav by the
accused in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
miserably failed to point out as to how, when and in what manner, the
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045396
CRM M-44338-2024 (O&M) -12-
investigation was interfered, particularly when the police has arrested
18 accused in the present case and has also collected sufficient
evidence against the accused. Moreover, the FIR in the present case
was registered on 26.10.2022 and the challan was presented against
the accused on 23.01.2023. Even, the supplementary challan was
presented on 02nd May 2023. After the presentation of challan, the
trial Court framed charge against the accused on 06.09.2023, whereas
the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 02.09.2024,
when the case was listed for prosecution evidence and few witnesses
had been recorded. Thus, in view of the unreasonable delay on the
part of the petitioner also, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed by this Court.
12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into
consideration the totality of the special facts and circumstances,
emanating from the record, as discussed hereinabove and without
commenting further anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the
case of the either side during the trial of the main case, the present
petition deserves to be dismissed.
11.03.2025 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
