Petition Dismissed: Court Finds No Merit in Police Misconduct Allegations, Upholds Public Prosecutor's Role.

The HC dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claims regarding alleged police misconduct, the need for further investigation, or the constitutionality of certain Cr. P.C. sections. The court upheld the role of the Public Prosecutor and denied requests for a private pleader and police protection, advising the petitioner to seek specific relief from the trial court if necessary.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged deliberate and shoddy investigation by police authorities.
2. Request for further investigation.
3. Inquiry into the nexus of ASI Satbir with criminals.
4. Ensuring rule of law by police officers.
5. Constitutionality of Sections 225 and 301(2) of Cr. P.C.
6. Conducting prosecution by a pleader of the petitioner's choice.
7. Providing police protection to the petitioner and his family.

Summary:

1. Alleged Deliberate and Shoddy Investigation by Police Authorities:
The petitioner claimed that the investigation into his brother Dharamvir's murder was deliberately mishandled by the police, who falsely registered an FIR describing the incident as an accident. The petitioner alleged that his signature was forged and that the police omitted critical evidence, including the nexus between ASI Satbir and the accused.

2. Request for Further Investigation:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the orders dated 7.1.2012 by the learned ASJ, which declined further investigation. The court noted that the trial court is empowered under Section 311, Cr. P.C. to summon material witnesses at any stage of the trial, ensuring a just decision.

3. Inquiry into the Nexus of ASI Satbir with Criminals:
The petitioner requested a writ of mandamus for an inquiry into ASI Satbir's alleged nexus with criminals and the forging of records in FIR No. 198/2011. The court did not grant this request, citing the ongoing trial and the powers vested in the trial court to ensure a fair investigation.

4. Ensuring Rule of Law by Police Officers:
The petitioner sought a direction to ensure compliance with the law by police officers. The court found this request vague and general, thus not granting it.

5. Constitutionality of Sections 225 and 301(2) of Cr. P.C.:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 225 and 301(2), Cr. P.C., arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court upheld the constitutionality, noting that the Public Prosecutor's role is to ensure a fair trial, and the differentiation between the rights of the accused and the complainant is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia.

6. Conducting Prosecution by a Pleader of the Petitioner's Choice:
The petitioner sought to conduct the prosecution through a pleader of his choice. The court reiterated that Section 302, Cr. P.C. applies only to trials by a Magistrate, and the prosecution before a Court of Session must be conducted by a Public Prosecutor, as per Section 225, Cr. P.C.

7. Providing Police Protection to the Petitioner and His Family:
The petitioner requested police protection, citing threats. The court noted that specific allegations of threats were not made in the petition and advised that such a request could be made to the concerned court if any threat exists.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claims, but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial court for specific reliefs as warranted.

---