IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.08.2025 GAGANDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents No. 2 to 4 to conduct fair, proper and impartial investigation in case FIR No. 63 dated 09.05.2025 under Sections 303 (2), 309 (4), 61 (2) of the BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala. A further prayer has also been made that the investigation of the aforesaid FIR be entrusted to CBI.

2. Even though an emphatic argument has been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Bank had taken forcible possession of the vehicle by use of muscle power for which an FIR has been registered. He, however, contends that since the Investigating Officer has not been taking a keen interest in the same, hence, the matter should be referred to the CBI or a direction be issued to the Investigating Agency for conducting a fair and impartial investigation into the matter.

3. A specific query has been put to Counsel for the petitioner as to under what circumstances a matter can be referred for investigation to the CBI, however, he is not in a position to assist this Court with respect to the position in law pertaining to the matters that may be referred to CBI. Further, even though a prayer has been made by the petitioner that the respondents be directed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, however, there is nothing on record on the basis whereof it may be prima facie assumed that the official respondents are not conducting investigation in fair and impartial manner. Merely because the respondent Investigating agency has not arrested a person does not mean that the investigation is unfair and suffers from partisan approach. It is settled position in law as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Joginder Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh”, reported as 1994 (4) SCC 260 that the power of arrest has to be segregated and examined separately from the need to arrest. There have to be compelling circumstances justifying the need for arrest.

4. In D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari & Anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3271 of 2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by issuing directions to the police on how to conduct the investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that investigation of crime is the exclusive domain of the police, and not every investigation must necessarily result in arrest, seizure, or charge sheet. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only when warranted by the parameters of law. The relevant extract is as under:

“21. The High Court, in the instant case, did not even advert to the relevant facts. As stated in the order itself, it was more guided by the arguments made across the Bar that the police has not taken any steps to arrest the persons and seize the amounts involved in this case from the appellants though there is no such factual foundation as such laid in the petition. It has altogether ignored the counter filed by the police that the police had already examined ten witnesses within a short span of time after the registration of crime and recorded their statements. The High Court, without recording any reason whatsoever, directed the police that it is obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property and filing of charge sheet. It is difficult to discern as to how such directions resulting in far reaching consequences could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Th