Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.) In F.I.R. bearing No. 5 registered, at Mahila Police Station, Baddi, the complainant/ petitioner herein reared allegations against respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 qua theirs, committing offences, embodied, in Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. In pursuance, to, the lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R, the Investigating Officer concerned, with utmost promptitude, proceeded to recover items of Istridhan, from respondent No.5. The aforesaid seizure occurred on 23.3.2017, in respect whereof, a seizure memo stood prepared, copy whereof is appended with the instant petition, as annexure R-3. In the reply on affidavit furnished by the State, it is earmarked, that, at the time of preparation of seizure memo, on 23.3.2017, the complainant/petitioner being also present AND also hers identifying all the items of Istridhan embodied therein. Subsequently on 17.05.2017, the complainant has instituted the instant petition, before this Court, wherewith she has appended an additional list of Istridhan items, items whereof she contends, to remain yet un-recovered, by the Investigating Officer, from the accused concerned. Hence a prayer is made for the investigation(s) being ordered to be transferred from respondent No.3, given his not holding fair investigations therein.
(2.) However, the preparation of the list appended with the writ petition AND bearing annexure P-3, appears, to be a sequel of sheer contrivance besides stratagem, deployed by her given (a) The aforesaid items being unenumerated in the F.I.R (b) the State of H.P. with its reply appending annexure R-4, annexure whereof stood prepared on 23.3.2017 itself (c) at the time of its preparation, the purported items of Istridhan, mentioned herein, not, finding their enumeration therein (d) thereupon this fact of theirs being purportedly, not returned viz-a-viz her, is, obviously engineered by sheer afterthought, for only maligning, the investigation(s) conducted by the I.O. Consequently, the prayer made by the petitioner, for the transfer of investigation(s) from respondent No.3, is not properly constituted, hence is declined. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have also been prayed to be arrested, whereas, no allegations, for their arrest, arising from theirs committing any non-bailable offence, stands, embodied either in any apposite complaint or in any F.I.R lodged with the Police Station concerned. Even if the petitioner still intends, to, make a prayer for their arrest, she is enjoined to prior thereto, make apposite motion(s) before the authority(s) concerned, whereas hers not making the apposite motion hence constrains, this Court to also decline the aforesaid relief to her. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.;