IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 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 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).

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 re