The central legal point established is that the CBI is obligated to investigate cases as directed by the Court, and the State Government's notification for investigation by the CBI should be honored.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

We have heard learned counsels and proceed to dispose of this writ petition.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) to investigate FIR No. 659/2008 (Case No.138 of 2016), u/s 365/302 IPC and FIR No.657/2008, u/s 325/302 IPC, both registered at P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, in view of the directions issued by this Court, in its judgment dated 01.06.2010, in Habeas Corpus Petition No.12 of 2008.

3. The petitioner’s brother, namely Rakesh Pahuja, who was the resident of Delhi, went to Mussoorie and, thereafter, to Haridwar along with his wife Veena Pahuja, daughter Preeti and son Paras, apart from Ms. Priyanka, who was the daughter of respondent no.3., Respondent no.3 is the brother of Veena Pahuja.

4. It appears that Rakesh Pahuja, while staying at a Dharamshala, at Haridwar, spoke on his mobile phone with respondent no.3 on the night of 25.06.2008. Thereafter, there was no contact with Rakesh Pahuja, and others accompanying him, and no trace of them was found. Even the vehicle, in which they were travelling, was not located, ever. Consequently, respondent no.3 lodged the aforesaid two FIRs’ at P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

5. It appears that they were investigated, and a closure report in relation to FIR No.659/2008 was filed on 21.07.2012, which was also accepted by the learned Additional C.J.M. on 09.12.2017 during the National Lok Adalat. However, there was no settlement recorded in relation to FIR No.657/2008, u/s 325/302 IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar. At this stage, Mr. Virk states that, even in respect of FIR No.657/2008, a final report was filed, and was accepted. Mr. Virk has, in this regard, referred to the General Diary entry.

6. It appears that even before the aforesaid developments qua the two FIRs’ took place, respondent no.3 made a letter petition to this Court with regard to the aforesaid persons going missing while travelling in a Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.HR 26-B 9605 from Haridwar, and the FIRs not being properly investigated. He sought transfer of investigation of these cases to the CBI. That letter petition was converted into a Habeas Corpus Petition by this Court, being Habeas Corpus Petition No.12 of 2008. The said Habeas Corpus petition was taken up by this Court for disposal and vide its order dated 01.06.2010, the Division Bench of this Court, passed the following order:-

“The factual position expressed in the instant Habeas Corpus Petition depicts, that five members of the same family went missing on 25.06.2008. The aforestated five members were traveling in a Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. HR 26-B 9605. The details of the investigation, produced by the learned counsel for the respondent in Court today, also notices telephonic conversation(s) with those, who had gone missing, over mobile phone bearing Nos. 09212168044, 09953031828. These mobile telephones were in possession of the missing persons. Originally, investigation was marked to the CB-CID. The efforts made by the CB-CID did not prove to be effective. It is, therefore, that this Court, by a motion Bench order dated 24.02.2010, required the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, to nominate an officer of his choice, to investigate into the matter. Mrs. Vimla Gunjiyal, Sector Officer, CB-CID, holding the rank of Addl. Superintendent of Police, was nominated by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, to investigate into the matter.

2. We have spoken to the officer, nominated by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, who is present in Court today. From the investigation made by her, it seems to us that despite her best efforts, no positive clues could emerge, on the basis of which, either the family members, or the car in which they were traveling, or their other goods, can be traced.

3. We are also informed, that a complaint in this behalf was made to the National Human Right