Thorough investigation and conclusive evidence are essential in murder cases, and the cooperation of concerned parties, such as providing blood samples for DNA profiling, is crucial in establishing identity.

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2015 passed by ld. ASJ, New Delhi. Further seeks directions thereby lodging prosecution against the accused persons.

2. The facts in brief are that petitioner is a father of deceased namely Kamlesh, who married to one Jagdish on 23.05.1987. However, Raghbir Singh (Uncle of Jagdish), Smt. Gyawati (mother of Jagdish) and Malkhan Singh (cousin of Jagdish) were not satisfied with the dowry articles brought by deceased Kamlesh at the time of her marriage and used to harass, torture and taunt her for the same. In the year 1989 daughter of the petitioner gave birth to a male child. Despite, they were not satisfied and had been harassing and torturing her.

3. In the year 1993, Kamlesh was given beatings by all the aforesaid family members, as a result of which, a miscarriage took place. Despite, she had been tolerating all the miseries with the hope and expectation that her fortune will change, but it did not happen.

4. Thereafter, on 28.02.1995, deceased Kamlesh kept fast on the occasion of Shivratri. In the night, she was given Kheer (sweet dish) to break her fast. After taking the said Kheer, her condition became precarious and she was brought to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi in the morning of 01.03.1995 wherein the Doctor disclosed that some poisonous substance was mixed in the Kheer. The daughter of the petitioner was under treatment in the aforesaid Hospital up to 03.03.1995. Thereafter, she was brought to Modi Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, where she remained under treatment till 16.04.1995. The entire expenses of the hospital amounting to the tune of Rs.60,000/- were borne by the petitioner. However, due to the long treatment, the daughter of the petitioner became physically and mentally handicapped and was not in a position to move without an Attendant. Since, April, 1995, the daughter of the petitioner had been living with her parents along with her son till 26.09.2003 when she was murdered.

5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accused persons named above were not on visiting terms during the period from April, 1995 till 26.09.2003 and the relations between the parties had deteriorated further. Consequently, a case FIR no. 1161/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was registered against the aforesaid accused persons and their family members at PS-Malviya Nagar, which is still pending.

6. Ld. Counsel further submits that accused Jagdish and his family members wanted to marry Jagdish somewhere else as deceased Kamlesh had become mentally and physically handicapped and was a liability upon them. Therefore, they made a plan to eliminate her.

7. On 29.09.2003, petitioner received an information from PS-Mandir Marg regarding the recovery of dead body of a lady. On receiving the same, petitioner and his family members went to the above-named Police Station on 30.09.2003 and identified the body as that of Kamlesh. Petitioner disclosed to the SHO, PS-Mandir Marg the fact and circumstances under which Kamlesh was murdered by her in-laws in collusion with Smt. Santosh. Accordingly, on 01.10.2003, a case FIR no. 264/2003 under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered at PS-Mandir Marg. Statement of Smt. Santosh was recorded by the IO on 02.10.2003 at her house and thereafter the statement of the petitioner was also recorded on the same day.

8. Being not satisfied with the investigation, petitioner made a complaint against the IO of the case to the higher authorities. Despite, Inpsr. Aakash Rawat of Crime Branch filed an untraced report before the Court of ld. ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Thereafter, a notice was served upon the petitioner and he appeared before the ld. ACMM along his Counsel and filed a Protest Petition by raising various grounds inter alia that, he is not satisfied with the way the investigation was proceeded and also submit