High Court

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9794 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Gupta,Kiran Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned Additional Government Advocate-I, representing the State- respondents.

2.The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: (a) A writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to re-open the investigation in Case Crime No.111 of 2011, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, and to trace the body of the petitioner’s husband. (b) A writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioner on 15.01.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a First Information Report (FIR) dated 14.03.2011, bearing Case Crime No.111 of 2011 under Section 364 IPC, was lodged by the petitioner’s mother-in-law, the late Saroj Devi, alleging the abduction of her son Abhishek Singh (deceased). Despite the initiation of the investigation, neither was the abducted individual recovered, nor were the accused apprehended.

4. Subsequently, late Saroj Devi submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, requesting a fair and thorough investigation. In response, by an order dated 30.05.2012, the investigation was transferred from the local police station to the In-Charge of S.I.S.

5. During the investigation, statements of the accused persons were recorded. They confessed to having murdered Abhishek Singh and disclosed that his body had been disposed of in a field near Jevar, Noida. Based on this, a charge sheet was filed against respondent no.4 under Section 364 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The petitioner submits that alongside the criminal proceedings, numerous civil 2 disputes, including mutation and partition matters, arose due to a fraudulent sale deed allegedly executed by respondent no.4 in his own favour in 2001.

6. It is further alleged that respondent no.4, in retaliation for the criminal proceedings, threatened and sexually assaulted the petitioner. Owing to fear, societal stigma, and shame, she did not disclose the incident immediately. Additionally, she and her brother-in-law were allegedly wrongfully detained by police acting under the influence of respondent no.4, resulting in humiliation and harassment. They approached this Hon’ble Court, and an order for police protection was accordingly granted.

7. Despite these serious allegations, including the accused’s confession and the unrecovered body of the deceased, the petitioner contends that the investigation was prematurely closed. She, therefore, prays for a fresh investigation into the matter, asserting that such an action is essential to secure justice.

8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 802, where it was observed that the objective of the judiciary should be to ensure a fair investigation and trial, and where necessary, to direct reinvestigation.

9. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the investigation was conducted fairly and in accordance with law, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet and commencement of trial. He further contends that the petitioner’s allegations are primarily civil in nature and do not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Heard rival submissions of the parties.

11. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by the parties with due care and attention.

12. The principal relief sought in this writ petition is the direction to re- investigate Case Crime No.111 of 2011 under Section 364 IPC, registered at Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh.

13. A detailed reading of the writ petition, comprising 39 paragraphs, reveals that much of it is devoted to elaborating on the various civil and revenue disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.4, which stem from an underlying property dispute. The petitioner’s main grievance, however, is that the investigation into her husband’s disappearance and alleged murder was incomplete and unfair, particularly because no steps were taken to recover the body. Despite these allegations, the petitioner has not been able to point out any specific instance of procedural illegality or investigative irregularity that would warrant judicial intervention in the form of a fresh investigation. 3

14. While the non-recovery of the deceased’s body is certainly unfortunate, it cannot, by itself, constitute valid grounds for directing further investigation or reinvestigation. It is well-settled in law that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence even in the absence of the dead body. The non- recovery of a body does not, per se, vitiate an investigation or preclude trial, as recognized in numerous judicial precedents.

15. Furthermore, the law concerning reinvestigation is well-established. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a direction for fresh investigation cannot be issued in a routine or mechanical manner. Such an order must be accompanied by a clear finding that the earlier investigation was inherently flawed and incapable of being acted upon. No such material has been brought to our notice by the petitioner in the present case.

16. A fresh investigation, if ordered, would have the effect of nullifying the entire earlier investigation and would also disrupt the ongoing trial proceedings. Notably, the petitioner herself admits in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that two Sessions Trials, namely S.T. No.204 of 2016 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar @ Deena) and S.T. No.612 of 2012 (State vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar), are currently underway in relation to the same crime. The record further indicates that three prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and P.W.-3 has deposed before the trial court on 03.09.2024.

17. At this advanced stage of the trial, re-opening the investigation would be not only unjustified but also detrimental to the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48, has categorically held that once the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial has commenced, courts should exercise extreme caution and restraint in interfering with the process by ordering reinvestigation, especially by a specialized agency.

18. In light of the above detailed discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The prayer for re-investigation is not substantiated by any cogent material or legal justification.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9794 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Gupta,Kiran Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned Additional Government Advocate-I, representing the State- respondents.

2.The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: (a) A writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to re-open the investigation in Case Crime No.111 of 2011, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, and to trace the body of the petitioner’s husband. (b) A writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioner on 15.01.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a First Information Report (FIR) dated 14.03.2011, bearing Case Crime No.111 of 2011 under Section 364 IPC, was lodged by the petitioner’s mother-in-law, the late Saroj Devi, alleging the abduction of her son Abhishek Singh (deceased). Despite the initiation of the investigation, neither was the abducted individual recovered, nor were the accused apprehended.

4. Subsequently, late Saroj Devi submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, requesting a fair and thorough investigation. In response, by an order dated 30.05.2012, the investigation was transferred from the local police station to the In-Charge of S.I.S.

5. During the investigation, statements of the accused persons were recorded. They confessed to having murdered Abhishek Singh and disclosed that his body had been disposed of in a field near Jevar, Noida. Based on this, a charge sheet was filed against respondent no.4 under Section 364 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The petitioner submits that alongside the criminal proceedings, numerous civil 2 disputes, including mutation and partition matters, arose due to a fraudulent sale deed allegedly executed by respondent no.4 in his own favour in 2001.

6. It is further alleged that respondent no.4, in retaliation for the criminal proceedings, threatened and sexually assaulted the petitioner. Owing to fear, societal stigma, and shame, she did not disclose the incident immediately. Additionally, she and her brother-in-law were allegedly wrongfully detained by police acting under the influence of respondent no.4, resulting in humiliation and harassment. They approached this Hon’ble Court, and an order for police protection was accordingly granted.

7. Despite these serious allegations, including the accused’s confession and the unrecovered body of the deceased, the petitioner contends that the investigation was prematurely closed. She, therefore, prays for a fresh investigation into the matter, asserting that such an action is essential to secure justice.

8. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 5 SCC 802, where it was observed that the objective of the judiciary should be to ensure a fair investigation and trial, and where necessary, to direct reinvestigation.

9. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that the investigation was conducted fairly and in accordance with law, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet and commencement of trial. He further contends that the petitioner’s allegations are primarily civil in nature and do not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Heard rival submissions of the parties.

11. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by the parties with due care and attention.

12. The principal relief sought in this writ petition is the direction to re- investigate Case Crime No.111 of 2011 under Section 364 IPC, registered at Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh.

13. A detailed reading of the writ petition, comprising 39 paragraphs, reveals that much of it is devoted to elaborating on the various civil and revenue disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.4, which stem from an underlying property dispute. The petitioner’s main grievance, however, is that the investigation into her husband’s disappearance and alleged murder was incomplete and unfair, particularly because no steps were taken to recover the body. Despite these allegations, the petitioner has not been able to point out any specific instance of procedural illegality or investigative irregularity that would warrant judicial intervention in the form of a fresh investigation. 3

14. While the non-recovery of the deceased’s body is certainly unfortunate, it cannot, by itself, constitute valid grounds for directing further investigation or reinvestigation. It is well-settled in law that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence even in the absence of the dead body. The non- recovery of a body does not, per se, vitiate an investigation or preclude trial, as recognized in numerous judicial precedents.

15. Furthermore, the law concerning reinvestigation is well-established. In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a direction for fresh investigation cannot be issued in a routine or mechanical manner. Such an order must be accompanied by a clear finding that the earlier investigation was inherently flawed and incapable of being acted upon. No such material has been brought to our notice by the petitioner in the present case.

16. A fresh investigation, if ordered, would have the effect of nullifying the entire earlier investigation and would also disrupt the ongoing trial proceedings. Notably, the petitioner herself admits in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that two Sessions Trials, namely S.T. No.204 of 2016 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar @ Deena) and S.T. No.612 of 2012 (State vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar), are currently underway in relation to the same crime. The record further indicates that three prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and P.W.-3 has deposed before the trial court on 03.09.2024.

17. At this advanced stage of the trial, re-opening the investigation would be not only unjustified but also detrimental to the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48, has categorically held that once the charge sheet has been submitted and the trial has commenced, courts should exercise extreme caution and restraint in interfering with the process by ordering reinvestigation, especially by a specialized agency.

18. In light of the above detailed discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The prayer for re-investigation is not substantiated by any cogent material or legal justification.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)