V.M. Jain, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, seeking monitoring of the investigation of the case arising out of FIR 69 dated 14.2.2000 registered at Police Station, Central, Chandigarh, under Section 364, IPC, concerning abduction/disappearance of a practicing lawyer of the District Courts, Chandigarh namely Parveen Kumar Sharma, whose whereabouts were not known till date.
(2.) In the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner was a practicing lawyer in the District Courts at Chandigarh and his brother Parveen Kumar Sharma was also a practicing lawyer in the District Courts, Chandigarh. It was alleged that on 8.2.2000, Parveen Kumar Sharma left his house at Mohali around 1.20 P.M. to take a Bus for New Delhi, where he had to attend the marriage of his niece on 9.2.2000. It was alleged that Parveen Kumar Sharma Parked his scooter in the scooter stand at Inder-State Bus Terminus, Chandigarh, and thereafter his whereabouts were not know. It was alleged that on 9.2.2000, the present-petitioner took a Bus from Chandigarh for New Delhi at 8.45 a.m. reaching there at 12.30 P.M. and when he reached the house of his cousin brother, the petitioner came to know that his brother Parveen Kumar Sharmq had not reached there. It was alleged that on return from New Delhi on 10.2.2000, the petitioner and other close relatives of Parveen Kumar Sharma started search of Parveen Kumar Sharma and they came to know that his scooter was parked at Inter-State Bus Terminus, chandigarh, but they did not came to know as to whether Parveen Kumar Sharma had taken a bus for New Delhi or not. It was alleged that on 11.2.2000, the family got recorded a DDR at Police Post stationed at Inter-State Bus Terminus, Chandigarh, and efforts were made to search Parveen Kumar Sharma. It was alleged that the petitioner had given another application dated 14.2.2000, on the basis of which, the Police registered the aforesaid FIR, copy Annexure PI, but instead of best efforts made by all friends and relatives and also by the Police, the whereabouts of Parveen Kumar Sharma had not been known. It was alleged that the President of the District . Bar Association along with the petitioner and other lawyers of the Bar, met the SSP, Chandigarh, on 16.2.2000 and impressed upon him for speedy investigation. Another deputation met the IGP, SSP and the SHO in the office of the IGP, Chandigarh, but nothing could be knosyn. It was alleged that the deputation met the IGP, chandigarh, who revealed that the Police had checked from each and every driver and conductor of the buses; which left for Delhi on 8.2.2000 and even posters carrying the details of Parveen Kumar had been pasted on the buses and circulated at other destinations and news-items were also given on the Doordarshan regarding the dis-appearance of Parveen Kumar Sharma, but uptil now, no clue had been found. It was alleged that the family and the friend of Parveen Kumar had been feeling that the Police was not taking that kind of incise, which it should, as the Police was busy in normal duties, It was alleged that taking into consideration that Parveen Kumar Sharma was practicing lawyer, the Chandigarh Police should be more serious in finding clue.about him. It was alleged that under these circumstances, it was essential that this Court should monitor the investigation and bring the truth to light. The present petition is dated 14.3.2000.
(3.) In the written reply, dated 28.3.2000, filed by Sh. Prag Jain, SSP, UT, Chandigarh, it was alleged that on receipt of a complaint dated 11.2.2000, DDR No. 11 was recorded in Police Post, Bust Stand, Sector 17, Chandigarh, on 11.2.2000 itself concerning Parveen Kumar Sharma. It was alleged that on 12.2.2000, the persons working at the scooter stand of the main Bus Stand were questioned. Even the drivers and conductors of the Buses were also questioned on 12.2.2000 as (Sic) whether Parveen Kumar Sharma had travelled in those Buses or not. This was done after obtaining the list of Buses, which left Chandigarh to other stations on the fateful day. However, no clue about the whereabouts of Parveen Kumar Sharma could be found. It was alleged that even the details of the missing persons were also telecast on the TV in the Siti Channel on 12.2.2000. It was alleged that on 14.2.2000, FIR 69 dated 14.2.2000 was registered under-Section 364, IPC, on the statement of the petitioner in Police Station, Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. It was alleged that on 14.2.2000, one Partap Singh of STD Booth of Delhi counter was questioned and was shown the photograph of Parveen Kumar Sharma and he identified the photograph and also stated that he had seen Parveen Kumar on 8.2.2000 at the Bus Stand between 1.30 p.m to 2.00 p.m and he was not carrying any luggage nor he was talking to anybody. On the same day, Inspector Rejinderpal, Incharge of Police Post, Bus Stand, checked the various buses and questioned their drivers and conductors specifically questioning them about the missing person and they were also shown the photograph, but no clue could be found. It was alleged that oven on 11.2,2000, photograph of Parveen Kumar Sharma had been shown to . the drivers and conductors of various buses, It was alleged that on 14.2.2000, Police parties were sent to various places along with posters to be pasted at the Police Stations. Railway Stations and Bus Stands. On 15.2.2000, various drivers were questioned while showing them the photographs of Parveen Kumar, but no clue could be found. On 16.2.2000, Police parties were sent to various places to affix posters on important and prominent places. On 17.2.2000, an application was moved to the Doordarshan, New Delhi, to telecast about the missing of Parveen Kumar Sharma along with his photography and the same was telecast on the Doordarshan on 21.2.2000. Meanwhile, on 18.2.2000, Police parties were sent to various places for making enquiries and pasting posters at prominent places. On the same day, the petitioner had informed SI Rajinderpal that Parveen Kumar, Advocate, had filed a complaint against one Ramandeep before the Human Rights Commission in the year 1996, when Ramandeep was posted as SHO, Police Station, Batala, District Fatehgarh Sahib, and the family suspected some foul play, thereupon investigations were carried out and it was found that on 8.2.200, Ramandeep, aforesaid, was posted at Police Station, Ramdas, District Majitha, and it was found that on 8.2.2000, Ramandeep had gone to attend the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, for evidence and after inclusion of evidence, he return back to the Police Station, Ramdas, District Majitha, and thus, his involvement was ruled out. It was alleged that on 19/20/21 and 22.2.2000, various Police parties were sent to various places for making enquiries and pasting posters, but despite all those efforts, all over the country and intensive efforts in the States of Punjab and Haryana, no clue about the missing person could be found. It was alleged that on 24.2.2000, a meeting was convened by the IGP, Chandigarh, in the presence of the President of the District Bar Association, the petitioner and his Advocate and other Police Officers and in the said meeting, investigation was discussed to chalk out further line of action. It was alleged that on 26.2.2000, Police parties were sent to Rajasthan to make enquiries and for pasting poster, but no clue could be found. It was alleged that on 2.3.2000, Inspector Satbir Singh, SHO, visited the house of Parveen Kumar Sharma, where the petitioner was also present and enquiries were made from the family members. On 17.3.2000, the petitioner informed the Investigating Officer that his brother had filed a criminal complaint on behalf of Parvinder Kaur against Property Dealers. Those persons were joined and investigated, but the involvement of those persons could not be found. It was alleged that on 23.3.2000. various Police parties were sent to various places in UP to paste posters at important places. It was alleged that notices regarding the missing person were published in various newspapers i.e. English Tribune, Dainik Jagran and Indian Express on 12.2.2000, 15.2.2000 and 20.2.2000 respectively, but of no avail, It was alleged that the petitioner and other members of the Bar were taken into confidence and any information given by them is being investigated to their entire satisfaction. It was further alleged that best possible efforts had been made to trace out the clues to know the whereabouts of the missing person. All possible lines of investigation, on the basis of the information, received from the family and the members of the Bar, had been thoroughly investigated, It was alleged that the investigation was still going on, but no clue about the whereabouts of Parveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate, could be traced till date. Sh Prag Jain, IPS, SSP, Chandigarh, filed a short reply dated 8.5.2000 alleging therein that on 2.4.2000, the Police parties were sent to various places to truce the whereabouts of Parveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate, but no clue could be found, it was alleged that on 7.4.2000, the father-in-law of Parveen Kumar Sharma was joined in the investigation to know if there was any property dispute, but it was found that there was no property dispute involving Parveen Kumar Sharma or his family members. On 15.4.2000, the mother of Parveen Kumar Sharma was also associated with the investigation to know if there was any property dispute or any family dispute, but of no avail, On 25.4.2000, the petitioner was also associated with the investigation, but nothing could be found. 6n 25.4.2000 itself, the wife of the missing person was also associated with the investigation, but nothing could be found. On 26.4.2000, 30.4.2000 and 2.5.2000, various Police parties were sent to various places to trace the whereabouts of Parveen Kumar Sharma, but no clue of the missing person could be found. It was alleged that the Investigating Agency was taking up various steps and had left no stone unturned to trace the missing person. It was alleged that the investigation was still going on and further steps are afoot to trace the whereabouts of Parveen Kumar Sharma.;