Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. By the instant petition the petitioner herein Ms. Chandra Lekha the victim and the wife of the deceased Ram Shankar praying for transfer of investigation of First Information Report dated 13.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0307 of 2024 P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar to the respondent no. 4 – the Central Bureau of Investigation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a missing report no. 13 of 2024 was lodged by the father-in-law of the petitioner for missing of his son Ram Shankar and on the basis of the missing report a dead body was recovered on pointing out of one namely Robin on 13.12.2024 and thereafter a First Information Report was registered on 13.12.2024 as FIR No. 0307 of 2024 at P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar, wherein, three persons namely Robin, Akshay and one Ankit were implicated for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) and 311 of BNS, 2023.

3. It is contended in the petition that the investigation was conducted by the local police in a very causal manner, which is evident from the fact that the car which was used in the commission of crime belongs to one Anil Kumar was neither taken into custody nor any forensic examination was done though just before the incident the car was in the custody of one person namely Sonu Fauji. In paragraph-6 reference has been made of an order dated 26.06.2025 passed in bail application moved by one of the accused Robin bearing Bail Application No. 551 of 2025 and by referring the said order Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the aforesaid order reveals that the investigation was carried out in a very casual manner. The relevant extract of the order dated 26.06.2025 is extracted herein as under:

“5. What this Court observed that the investigation was carried out in a very casual manner and keeping in mind that the statutory period for filing the charge sheet is 90 days, in a hurried manner the charge sheet was filed before the expiry of statutory period.

6. So many lacunas have been pointed out by Mr. Aditya Singh learned counsel for the applicant in respect of the investigation and in reference to this he brings to the notice the statements of two prosecution witnesses, namely, Anil Kumar and one Sultan Singh, father of Sonu Fauji. Anil Kumar is a person who owned vehicle UP12AN 8378, which according to the prosecution was used in commission of the crime and Sultan Singh is the father of Sonu Fauji who took car from Anil Kumar on 06.12.2024.

7. In this case, missing report was filed on 09.12.2024 with the complaint that from 08.12.2024 Ramshankar (deceased) was missing. On this missing report the investigation was commenced and during investigation it was found that there was a transaction of Rs. 30,000/- with two persons, namely, Praveen and Vinay servingin a petrol pump who paid Rs. 30000/- in cash to the applicant Robbin and in turn the applicant refund the amount by way of UPI transaction. In furtherance of the investigation one Anil Kumar was also interrogated (who owned the car used in the crime) who informed that the vehicle was took over by Sonu Fauji on 06.12.2024. On further investigation it was found by the I.O. that Sonu Fauji left to join fauj. Since, Sonu Fauji left to join Fauj, consequently his father was interrogated by the I.O. who informed that the car took by the present applicant on 08.12.2024.

8. The statement of Anil Kumar and the statement of father of Sonu Fauji are placed on record along with the case diary and by showing the statements of these two prosecution witnesses the counsel for the applicant argued that it is absolutely incorrect that Sonu Fauji left for Fauj, since, as per the statement of Anil Kumar and his father Sonu Fauji was in the village on the date when the incident was happened.

9. On perusal of the case diary it reveals that charge sheet was filed against the applicant, since, as per the prosecution Sonu Fauji left to join the Fauj. The case diary further