2017 Gurugram murder case: CBI seeks time to file status report on prosecution of Haryana cops
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday sought an adjournment in a case against four Haryana police officials accused of falsely framing a school bus conductor in the 2017 murder of a Class 2 student at a Gurugram school.
The request was made before a special CBI court in Panchkula, where the agency had earlier filed a separate charge sheet against the officers under various IPC sections.
The matter was listed for submission of a status report regarding the grant of prosecution sanction by the competent authority, as directed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2022 case. However, CBI's public prosecutor told special judicial magistrate Anil Kumar Yadav that the sanction was still awaited, despite repeated reminders following the high court's January 24, 2025, order.
The agency requested a final extension to comply with the directive.
The complainant's counsel also asked for an adjournment to present arguments on whether such a sanction was necessary. The court granted both requests and adjourned the matter to May 28.
In January, the high court overturned the Haryana government's earlier decision to deny sanction for prosecuting the officers and directed the sanctioning authority to reconsider the matter, citing CBI's evidence. The Haryana government had originally refused the sanction on February 19, 2021—a decision contested by both the CBI and the victim's father.
The sensational case centres on the murder of a seven-year-old student on September 8, 2017. The Haryana police initially arrested bus conductor Ashok Kumar, but the CBI later arrested a Class 11 student as the real suspect.
On January 6, 2021, the agency filed a supplementary charge sheet accusing police officers Narinder Singh Khatana, Birem Singh, Shamsher Singh, and Subhash Chand of falsely implicating Kumar.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
UCO bank fraud: CBI court refuses to discharge Topworth director
MUMBAI: A special CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) court refused to discharge Abhay Lodha, the director of Topworth Steels and Power Pvt Ltd, from a cheating and criminal conspiracy case for allegedly causing losses worth ₹74 crore to UCO Bank. The FIR was registered against M/s Akshata Mercantile Private Ltd (AMPL) and unknown UCO Bank officials after the company submitted four bills worth ₹74 crore under Letter of Credit (LC), which were diverted to Topworth Steels. The case was registered based on a complaint by the general manager and zonal head of the public sector bank, alleging that the office bearers of AMPL and certain bank officials cheated the bank to the tune of ₹74.82 crore. As per the CBI, UCO bank had discounted bills worth ₹74.82 crore, which was diverted by AMPL to Topworth Group of Companies. One of the receiving companies refused to accept these bills stating that the documents were not as per LC. The bills remained unpaid, causing a loss of ₹74.82 crore to UCO bank. The prosecution alleged that the request letters were prepared at the behest of Lodha. The discharge plea observed that Lodha was falsely implicated in the case since he is neither the director nor engaged in the day-to-day affairs of AMPL. Merely because Lodha was the guarantor to the LC does not implicate him in the conspiracy, submitted the defence, adding that there was no evidence to show on record that funds were being diverted. However, the court observed that even if Lodha is not the director of AMPL, the investigating officer had collected material to show that AMPL was a company of the Topworth group, of which Lodha was the chairman. 'He has direct control over the business affairs of M/s. AMPL. Throughout the investigation, it was revealed that Mr Abhay Lodha was the prime accused and without his indulgence, the crime could not have been committed,' the court said. In an order passed on June 12, the court further said that the material placed on record shows that there was criminal intent behind certain acts of Lodha with regard to the bank.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: SUV tries to run over SHO, cops open fire in high-speed chase
A dramatic firing incident unfolded on late Tuesday evening near Bahadurke Road when Ludhiana police opened fire at a Haryana-registered SUV that allegedly tried to run over a station house officer (SHO) at a checkpoint near Chhawani Mohalla. The occupants of the SUV managed to flee on foot after abandoning the vehicle, prompting a search. According to additional deputy commissioner of police (ADCP-1) Sameer Verma, the incident began when inspector Harpreet Singh, SHO of Division Number 4 police station, was conducting a routine checking near Chhawani Mohalla. Around the time of the incident, the inspector signalled a suspicious-looking Hyundai Creta with a Haryana number plate to stop for inspection. 'Instead of complying, the driver accelerated and attempted to run over the SHO. Thankfully, no injuries occurred,' said ADCP Verma. The refusal to stop triggered a high-speed police chase. As the suspects sped away recklessly, they reportedly collided with at least three other vehicles while trying to evade the police. The pursuit continued until Bahadurke Road, where the police, in an attempt to bring the vehicle to a halt, fired three warning shots at the SUV. The shots forced the suspects to abandon the vehicle at the spot. They fled the scene on foot under the cover of darkness, and their identities remain unknown. The police have launched an intensive search operation and are scanning nearby CCTV footage for clues. The Hyundai Creta has been seized and is now in police custody. ADCP Verma confirmed that no weapons, drugs, or contraband were found in the vehicle during preliminary checks. 'We are currently trying to trace the suspects. An FIR is being registered at Salem Tabri police station against unidentified individuals under relevant sections of the IPC,' he added.
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
Last Updated: The Supreme Court observed that the fact that the husband is not earning does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife The Supreme Court has said that the objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that, in a marriage that does not survive and has one of the two spouses dependent on the other, such a spouse is not left without any source of support. At the same time, it is clear that the grant of permanent alimony cannot be a method of punishing the spouse who is asked to pay the said amount. A judicious balance has to be struck between the interests of both parties, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra said. The court here enhanced the alimony awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to an appellant wife from Rs one lakh to Rs five lakh. The High Court, by its judgement and order of June 2, 2022, confirmed the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband, as originally granted by the Family Court, Faridabad, on December 14, 2018. The High Court further ordered that the respondent-husband would pay the appellant-wife a sum of Rs one lakh as alimony. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on November 9, 2008. Soon thereafter, it was alleged that harassment of the former began at the hands of the latter's family. This culminated, according to the appellant-wife, with her being turned away from her matrimonial home on January 5, 2011, after being physically assaulted. A few months thereafter, litigation began inter se the parties in one form or another. The respondent-husband at first filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955; the appellant-wife thereafter filed an FIR on November 15, 2011, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Prior thereto, she also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on May 26, 2011. The divorce proceedings were initiated by the respondent-husband on March 25, 2013. In its pendency, protracted and acrimonious litigation ensued between the parties. In the proceedings under the DV Act, the concerned court awarded Rs 2,000 per month to the appellant-wife. On September 17, 2016, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which eventually resulted in an order in her favour granting Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance on September 5, 2019. The order of Rs 2,000 per month maintenance in the DV Act proceedings was also appealed against and was enhanced to Rs 5,000 per month by an order on January 20, 2018. The Additional Principal Family Judge, Faridabad, passed the judgment and decree on December 14, 2018, dissolving the marriage. The High Court confirmed the grant of dissolution of marriage and awarded Rs one lakh alimony to the appellant wife. Examining the matter limited to the quantum of alimony, the bench cited Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain (2025), which, upon considering a host of pronouncements, culled out a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court must consider in granting permanent alimony, including status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, individual qualifications and employment status, independent income and assets, standard of life enjoyed by the wife, etc. The court also referred to Rajnesh Vs Neha, in which the Supreme Court observed that in computing permanent alimony, the fact that the husband is not earning (as the respondent-husband has submitted in his counter affidavit) does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife. It has also been held that if the wife has been awarded maintenance in any other proceeding, she must disclose the same, and a set-off must take place. Having considered the law, the bench said, 'We are of the view that the High Court's determination of permanent alimony at Rs one lakh is insufficient. As such, in the attending facts and circumstances of this case, and without interfering with the final conclusion reached by both the Family Court and the High Court regarding the grant of divorce, we enhance the permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant wife by a sum of Rs four lakhs, bringing the total thereof to Rs five lakh." The court clarified that this would be a full and final settlement of all claims. It also said the amount would be payable in 10 equal instalments, with the final instalment being payable in the month of March 2026. The bench further held that the effect of this order would be that all other proceedings regarding maintenance stand subsumed by this payment. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 18, 2025, 04:15 IST News india 'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
