High Court Throws Out Murder Case Against NRI Father After ‘Missing’ Daughter Found Alive in Canada

In a stern dismissal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a plea for a fresh probe, confirming that a woman presumed murdered by her father is alive and settled abroad.

For over a decade, a family’s internal discord played out in the courtroom, centered on the chilling allegation that a young woman had been killed by her own father. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court put the case to rest this week, labeling the murder claims a mere "figment of imagination" after state authorities tracked the woman to Canada.

The petitioner, the woman’s maternal uncle, had spent years pushing for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be constituted. He alleged that his niece, who had been missing since 2013, was the victim of a calculated crime orchestrated by her father, an NRI based in Germany. The uncle’s plea suggested that the police had failed to look into the disappearance, hinting at a cover-up.

Verified by Passport and Pixel

Justice Surya Partap Singh, presiding over the matter, found no merit in the request for a fresh investigation. The court’s order, delivered on June 5, highlighted that the police had gone to exhaustive lengths to verify the woman’s status. By cross-referencing passport records and immigration data, investigators confirmed she had moved to Canada and was living there.

The judicial scrutiny went beyond mere paperwork. Authorities facilitated video calls between the woman and her relatives, allowing them to verify her identity visually. With the woman confirmed to be alive and well, the court observed that the core premise of the petitioner’s case—that a murder had occurred—had entirely collapsed.

The Bigger Picture

This case serves as a sharp reminder of the pitfalls of leveraging criminal courts to settle long-standing familial or property-related disputes. When personal vendettas turn into legal petitions, they consume significant judicial bandwidth that could be directed toward genuine grievances.

The court’s decision sends a clear signal: an investigation cannot be reopened based on suspicion alone when hard evidence contradicts the narrative. By rejecting the plea, the High Court has not only protected an NRI father from potentially malicious prosecution but also reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests firmly on the accuser. The "figment of imagination" terminology used by the judge acts as a reprimand against the misuse of the legal system to harass family members under the guise of justice.