High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Present:- None For The vs Unknown on 10 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Present:- None For The vs Unknown on 10 March, 2009
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                              Crl. Misc. No. M-27623 of 2005
                              Date of Decision:- 10.3.2009

Nayada                            Versus           State of Haryana & Ors.


Present:- None for the petitioner.

          Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.

M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral)

          Report of C.B.I has been purused. C.B.I has investigated the

matter and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner neither was subject to

Lie-Detection Test and sixteen questions were put to her.           In all the

questions, deceptions were noticed indicating that her statements before the

police, before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, Jhirka on

16.12.2004

and before the trial Court on 4.1.2007 are not correct. It has not

been recommended to present challan against the other suspects namely

Sahu, Nawab Khan, Nijjar, Arshad and Ise Khan and have sexual

intercourse with Nayada on the basis of the investigation.

In view of this, this petition has become infructuous. However,

an application has been filed by C.B.I for entrusting the case pending in the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nooh to the C.B.I Judge at Ambala,

wherein, the report under Section 173 had been presented by the C.B.I.

After carefully considering the said application, I am of the

opinion that in view of the fact, that the ‘conclusion’ of the investigation by

the Haryana Police and by C.B.I is same, as such, continuation of trial by

two Courts for the same offence on similar allegations will not be in the

interest of justice. The application of C.B.I is, thus, dismissed.

Proceedings in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nooh are far-ahead of

proceedings which have been initiated on the basis of fresh investigation.
Crl. Misc. No. M-27623 of 2005 -2-

While appreciating efficiency with which investigation had been conducted

by C.B.I, it is observed that as the conclusion of the two investigations is

same, the judicial propriety demands that trial which was initiated earlier

should continue.

However, taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment in

T.T Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. 2001VAD (SC) 373 , it is

observed that the investigation conducted by C.B.I will be treated as

investigation as per provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Report and file

pending in the C.B.I Court at Ambala, will be sent to the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Nooh as witnesses cited in both the cases are

same. It will be open to the prosecution agency or the accused who have

been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the Additional Sessions Judge

to use the report of C.B.I as it will help the Court to separate Nuggets of

truth from the chef of falsehood.

With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.

Copy of the order be sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, Nooh

as well as Special Judge, C.B.I. Ambala.

March 10, 2009                                               (M.M.S.Bedi)
tripti                                                         Judge