Judgment:
CRM M-33317 of 2012 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-33317 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 4, 2012 Sushil …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.Ramanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana.
-.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner was injured by a fire arm injury.
In this context, the younger brother of the petitioner is being involved.
Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the officials respondents to trace the actual culprits and ascertain the real identity of the actual culprits and not to proceed with the younger brother of the petitioner, namely, Narinder, against whom, the FIR has been registered.
CRM M-33317 of 2012 [2].Counsel for the petitioner claims that no role whatsoever in the incident dated July 4, 2012 was played by the real brother the petitioner, namely, Narinder.
On the instructions of ASI Shanker Lal, State counsel insists that the investigation is being conducted on the basis of the material available to the investigating agency.
A representation for fair investigation seems to have been filed before SP, District Rohtak vide annexure P-1 dated July 23, 2012.
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to issue any directions guiding the investigating agency.
It will be open to the petitioner to disclose the name of the suspects in order to enable the police to inquire into the details of the actual culprits.
The only relief which can be granted to the petitioner in peculiar circumstances of this case is that SP, District Rohtak be directed to take into consideration annexure P-1.
It will be open to SP, District Rohtak, to take into consideration the names of the suspects and the material available regarding the gun shot fired on the right side of the abdomen of the petitioner- complainant Sushil Kumar.
This petition is disposed of directing SP, District Rohtak to get the averments of the petitioner in annexure P-1 looked into within a period of two months.
December 4 , 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) CRM M-33317 of 2012 [3].sanjay JUDGE