The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction to seek a status report and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team concerning the alleged disappearance and suspected murder of Devinder Kaur. The petitioner, who described himself as the brother of Harpal Kaur and the maternal uncle of Devinder Kaur, contended that Devinder Kaur had been missing since early 2013 and that her possible murder had not been adequately investigated by the police.
According to the petition, Harpal Kaur married Balbir Singh in 1978 and Devinder Kaur was born out of that wedlock. It was alleged that Balbir Singh later moved to Germany in 1985, entered into a second marriage without informing his first wife and daughter, and that this led to strained family relations. The petition further claimed that in 2012 Balbir Singh allegedly arranged the marriage of Devinder Kaur to Jagmohan Singh without informing her maternal family. Following the death of Balbir Singh's father in January 2013, family members discovered that Harpal Kaur and Devinder Kaur were missing. A missing person report was lodged on 3 February 2013 at the Ludhiana police station, which was subsequently converted into an FIR under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, primarily concerning the alleged murder of Harpal Kaur. The petitioner asserted that Devinder Kaur was also missing and possibly murdered, but the investigating agency failed to trace her or to prosecute Balbir Singh, Sarabjit Singh and others for her alleged murder.
The petitioner argued that the police had relied on an implausible explanation given by Devinder Kaur's husband, who claimed that she fled from a bus stand after striking him with a bag. Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case reflected gross negligence and a lackadaisical approach by the investigating agency, pointing out that despite the filing of a missing report, the authorities neither traced Devinder Kaur nor investigated the possibility of her murder. The petitioner also questioned the State's claim that Devinder Kaur was alive and residing in Canada, asserting that no concrete proof of her current address had been provided and that the theory appeared to be an afterthought designed to conceal investigative lapses.
In opposition, the State maintained that the investigation had been conducted fairly and that Devinder Kaur was alive and residing in Canada. The State relied on a status report and an affidavit filed by a senior IPS officer, which detailed the steps taken to verify Devinder Kaur's identity and whereabouts. These steps included verification of her passport and immigration records, statements of close relatives, and WhatsApp video calls conducted in the presence of police officials. According to the State, records showed that Devinder Kaur was issued a passport in 2012, renewed it in Canada in 2022, and had travelled between India and Canada on multiple occasions, including visits in 2016 and 2024. Her identity was also confirmed during video calls by her maternal aunt and cousin.
After examining the record, the Court observed that the investigating agency had undertaken comprehensive efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of Devinder Kaur. The Court noted that the affidavit of the senior police officer was supported by documentary evidence, including passport and immigration records, as well as statements of close relatives who confirmed her identity during video calls. The Court held that there was no material to disbelieve the State's version and that the petitioner's claim that Devinder Kaur had been murdered was merely speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Justice Surya Partap Singh, delivering the judgment, stated that the plea of the petitioner was not sustainable at all, emphasizing that there had been no laxity or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents not to prosecute Balbir Singh for the murder of Devinder Kaur. The Judge further remarked that since Devinder Kaur was still alive, the question of prosecuting any person for her murder did not arise at all.
In view of these findings, the Court held that the petition was devoid of merit and did not warrant further investigation or the constitution of a Special Investigation Team. The petition was accordingly dismissed.