Full Text
Translation output
!
3s# $-
{< IN THE HIGH COI]RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(cRL) 973t20r1
JAY BHAGWAN
Through:
VETSUS
STATE OF DELHI & ORS
Through: ..... Petitioner
Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate. ..... Respondents
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State with Inspector Somnath.
Mr. Rajkumar Tanwar, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhbeer Kour Bajwa, Advocate for UOIIR-3. lVIr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for the CBI/R-4.
3s# $-
{< IN THE HIGH COI]RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(cRL) 973t20r1
JAY BHAGWAN
Through:
VETSUS
STATE OF DELHI & ORS
Through: ..... Petitioner
Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate. ..... Respondents
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State with Inspector Somnath.
Mr. Rajkumar Tanwar, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhbeer Kour Bajwa, Advocate for UOIIR-3. lVIr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for the CBI/R-4.
CORAM:
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA oh 03.08.2011
By this petition the Petitioner seeks transfer of investigation to CBI or any other specialized investigating agency in case FIR No. 6412011 under
Section 365 registered at PS Kapasera, Delhi for the missing of his son.
On notice being issued status report has been filed by the State.
As per the status report the missing report of the Petitioner's son aged about 22 years was lodged on 23'd March,20II. After the missing report was lodged efforts were made to trace the missing boy by the Investigating
Page I of 2 w.P.(cRL) 973/2011
2011:DHC:18883
/ t
Officer, P.S. Kapashera. Ultimately the mobile phone of the missing boy
Ravi was recovered abandoned by one Harsukh in the Manesar area who was also questioned at length but no result could be achieved. The persons with whom the Petitioner's son had talk from his phone were also examined at length, however, nothing was revealed. Finally, the Petitioner's family suspected some role of Shakuntala, the wife of the missing boy and Kamal of her village, thus, they were also interrogated. However, no clue regarding the missing son of the Petitioner has been found. It appears that efforts to the best of the ability have been done by the SHO, PS Kapasera, Delhi, however, still there is no trace of the Petitioner's son. In the interest of justice, the investigation of case FIR No. 6412011 under Section 365 IPC registered at PS Kapasera, Delhi is transferred to the Anti Kidnapping Cell of the Crime Branch which will investigate the same in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
Order dasti to both the parties.
@
,MUKTA
GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 03,2011 ovnt w.P.(cRL) e7s/2011
2011:DHC:18883
By this petition the Petitioner seeks transfer of investigation to CBI or any other specialized investigating agency in case FIR No. 6412011 under
Section 365 registered at PS Kapasera, Delhi for the missing of his son.
On notice being issued status report has been filed by the State.
As per the status report the missing report of the Petitioner's son aged about 22 years was lodged on 23'd March,20II. After the missing report was lodged efforts were made to trace the missing boy by the Investigating
Page I of 2 w.P.(cRL) 973/2011
2011:DHC:18883
/ t
Officer, P.S. Kapashera. Ultimately the mobile phone of the missing boy
Ravi was recovered abandoned by one Harsukh in the Manesar area who was also questioned at length but no result could be achieved. The persons with whom the Petitioner's son had talk from his phone were also examined at length, however, nothing was revealed. Finally, the Petitioner's family suspected some role of Shakuntala, the wife of the missing boy and Kamal of her village, thus, they were also interrogated. However, no clue regarding the missing son of the Petitioner has been found. It appears that efforts to the best of the ability have been done by the SHO, PS Kapasera, Delhi, however, still there is no trace of the Petitioner's son. In the interest of justice, the investigation of case FIR No. 6412011 under Section 365 IPC registered at PS Kapasera, Delhi is transferred to the Anti Kidnapping Cell of the Crime Branch which will investigate the same in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
Order dasti to both the parties.
@
,MUKTA
GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 03,2011 ovnt w.P.(cRL) e7s/2011
2011:DHC:18883
JUDGMENT