- (1.) UPON taking up of this matter, several unusual things have transpired before the Court. In the first place, the learned counsel Mr. Vinay Jain appeared and submitted that he has filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of the daughter of the petitioner; and she is being produced by him in the Court.
(2.) LOOKING to the background aspects, as stated in the writ petition, we posed a question to the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as to whether the daughter of the petitioner is being produced by the Investigating Officer or not ? After having perused the case diary placed before us and the notings drawn, when we further inquired about the persons, as referred in the case diary dated 08.04.2013, who had allegedly been involved in the elopement of the girl, i.e., the daughter of the petitioner and facilitating her hiding as well as hiding of the accused, the learned Additional Advocate General inquired from the IO concerned Mr. Ved Prakash, SI, PS Gharsana, District Sriganganagar present in the Court. The IO, in the first place, submitted that the uncle of the accused named Raju @ Raja Ram had been arrested. When with reference to the contents of the case diary, we expressed rather surprise that nothing related with the arrest of the person was available on the record, the IO concerned was again questioned by the learned Additional Advocate General and then, the IO replied that he had only interrogated Raja Ram.
(3.) WHEN we asked about the other persons, it was suggested by the IO concerned that they were only interrogated. Admittedly, no interrogation note in relation to the other referred persons is available in the case diary. The manner of dealing with the matter by the IO concerned has left too many things to be desired and it is high time that the Department takes note of such shortcomings of the IO concerned which directly conflict with the requirement of maintaining the rule of law and faith of the public in the system.;