Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reeta Rani vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 2 May, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-5238 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision : May 2nd, 2012
Reeta Rani .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Reeta Rani, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 to provide protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members from the hands of respondents No. 5 to 11 or any other person at their behest as also for directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 to investigate the matter regarding the alleged involvement of petitioner's son Chetan Puri in various false and blind cases bearing FIR Nos. 316 dated 27.7.2010, 120 dated 18.9.2010, 252 dated 30.10.2010, 229 dated 8.12.2010 and 2 dated 6.1.2011, got registered at the behest of Harish Bedi, the local MLA in order to pressurize the petitioner to Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 2 ..
compromise the case registered by way of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 354, 452, 506 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code with respondents No. 5 to 11. She has also sought directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 to investigate the case registered by way of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 and to proceed with the same in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is mother of Chetan Puri. According to her, Chetan Puri is aged 24 years and is working with his father in the family business of hosiery. She has further submitted that Deepak Kumar, respondent No.5 had been a neighbour and friend of Chetan Puri. He was helping the petitioner in various domestic chores. According to her, on 10.5.2010, the petitioner found her purse to be missing and she asked Deepak Kumar, respondent No. 5, in this regard. Annoyed with this, he went away and brought his friends i.e. respondents No. 6 to 11, who pelted stones at the house of the petitioner and gave beating to the petitioner and her family members. The people of the locality came to their rescue and on their arrival, they ran away. The petitioner also made a call to police at No. 100. Police came to enquire, to whom a written complaint was made, but no action was taken thereon. She has further submitted that in the night intervening 11th and 12th May, 2010, at about 1.00 AM respondents No. 5 to 11 alongwith 20-25 persons armed with swords and various other weapons forcibly entered the house of the petitioner and had brutally beaten the petitioner and her family members. According to her, the petitioner again approached Police Station, Salem Tabri, District Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 3 ..
Ludhiana wherefrom an ASI and a constable came to the spot and took some photographs, but no action was taken. She has further submitted that on 23.5.2010, respondents No. 5 to 11 came to her house with an intention to kill her. The petitioner and her family members managed to save themselves with the help of residents of the locality. After respondents left the place, the petitioner again called the police and in response to her call, ASI Virenderjit Singh and some police constables came to the spot. However, nothing was done this time also. Respondent No. 9 is the uncle of respondent no.5. He keeps threatening the petitioner and her family members that Harish Bedi, the local MLA is very close to him and that he will get the entire family implicated in some false criminal case. Apprehending danger from him, the petitioner made several applications to the police and other authorities. She has further submitted that at last, FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 was registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 354, 452, 506 read with section 149 IPC. She kept making requests for investigation of the matter in accordance with law and to seek protection of life and liberty of the family, but to no effect. She has further submitted that thereafter, respondent No. 9, who is close associate of MLA Harish Bedi got a blind FIR No. 2 dated 6.1.2011 registered at Police Station Daresi under sections 382, 341 and 506 IPC. The police picked up Chetan Puri on 15.1.2011. On 18.1.2011, the petitioner came to know that her son Chetan Puri has been arrested for his involvement in about 11 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these FIRs are pertaining to the period after the lodging of FIR against respondents No. 5 to 11 by the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 4
..
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Chetan Puri was never involved in any case earlier to the registration of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010. She has further submitted that respondent No. 9, who is an accused in FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 is complainant in FIR No. 2 dated 6.1.2011. She has further submitted that he was well acquainted with Chetan Puri and despite that, he did not name Chetan Puri in the FIR. She has further submitted that Chetan Puri has not been identified by any complainant in all the FIRs and not even test identification parade had been got conducted in any of those cases. She has further submitted that all these FIRs and involvement of Chetan Puri in those cases has been got done with a view to put pressure on the petitioner for a compromise in the case registered by way of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010. According to her, the partisan attitude of the police is apparent from the fact that challan has been presented in the case registered by way of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 but section 452 IPC has not been added to the case despite the fact that there was clear evidence to that effect.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that FIR No. 122 dated 30.6.2011 has been registered at Police Station, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana under sections 341, 382 read with section 34 IPC. According to her, Chetan Puri who had been released on bail in all the earlier cases was taken away from his home by ASI Kuldeep Singh on 29.6.2011 at about 6.00 AM on the pretext of conducting enquiry into the previously registered cases. When Chetan Puri did not return home and the family members did not come to know about his whereabouts, the petitioner had sent a telegram on 29.6.2011 at 3.17 PM to Hon`ble the Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 5 ..
Chief Justice of this court and to the Chairperson of Punjab State Human Rights Commission, regarding the taking of Chetan Puri in illegal custody by ASI Kuldeep Singh. The petitioner made another representation to Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana and consequently, Chetan Puri was released on 2.7.2011 by the police. She has claimed that in the case registered on 30.6.2011, Chetan Puri had been involved by picking him up on 29.6.2011 and it clearly proves the case of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in FIR No. 122 dated 30.6.2011, the complainant names Chetan Puri. According to her, there was no source with the complainant to know the identity of Chetan Puri. She has submitted that Jatin Kumar, the complainant was made by the police to name Chetan Puri. According to her, a habeas corpus petition bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1410 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner in this court and vide orders dated 28.7.2011, the petitioner or Chetan Puri were given the liberty to avail of any remedy in accordance with law for his illegal detention and torture.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the police became late in registering the case bearing FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 because there had been talks of compromise going on between the parties. According to him, when those talks failed, the FIR was recorded. According to him, challan has been presented against both the parties being cross-cases and those challans are before the court. He has further submitted that though the FIRs except No.122 dated 30.5.2011 are blind, yet recoveries of gold and other articles have been effected from Chetan Puri. He has further submitted that the Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 6 ..
petitioner could not give any reason why those offences could not be committed by Chetan Puri. He has further submitted that this petition itself is an attempt to create defence for Chetan Puri in all those cases. He has further submitted that the police has found his involvement in all those cases and only after due verification, Chetan Puri has been arrested.
What looks strange is that all the 11-12 FIRs, in which Chetan Puri had been arrested, are registered during the period after the registration of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010. However, the strangeness of this circumstance is not sufficient to hold that the involvement of Chetan Puri in all these cases is not there and that he has been illegally involved in those cases at the instance of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 or under the influence of Harish Bedi, the alleged MLA. The police has recovered valuable articles in all those cases and it cannot be believed that with a view to force the petitioner to compromise the case registered vide FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010, the gold and other articles would have been given by respondents No. 5 to 11 to the police to be planted in those cases. The challans have already been filed in those cases before the court and the court would have to decide on the evidence of the prosecution, if there is involvement of Chetan Puri or not.
The most telling circumstance, which is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in FIR No. 122 registered on 30.6.2011, Chetan Puri had been picked up by the police on 29.6.2011. If it is a fact then it would lend the required strength to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the observation of this court in the orders dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P16) made in Criminal Writ Petition Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 7 ..
No. 1410 of 2011 takes away the lustre of the argument. It has been noticed that the date of picking up Chetan Puri has been different in two documents. While in the letter sent by post by Chetan Puri to Hon`ble the Chief Justice of this court, the date of picking up Chetan Puri is 30.6.2011 at 5.00 AM while as per the telegram, he was picked up on 29.6.2011 at 5.00 AM. So, the two documents on this point are not one on the date of picking up of Chetan Puri.
It has been argued before me that Chetan Puri had not been identified by any of the complainants in the above mentioned FIRs. It was also the submission that he was not put to test identification parade in any of those cases. These are the cases where recovery of the case property from Chetan Puri is claimed by the investigating agency. In cases of theft, extortion etc., when the case property is recovered from a person, the investigating agency normally does not go for test identification parade and puts forward the possession of the case property by the accused as the primary evidence to prove the charge. In cases of theft normally the complainants do not know the culprits and so, are unable to name them. Therefore, for these reasons, it cannot be said that Chetan Puri has been falsely implicated in all those cases.
The liberty given to the petitioner or Chetan Puri vide orders dated 28.7.2011 passed by this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1410 of 2011 to avail of any remedy in accordance with law for his alleged illegal detention and torture does not mean to convey that the court has found Chetan Puri to have been illegally detained. When the matter was taken up for consideration, Chetan Puri was already released and to avail any remedy, the petitioner or Chetan Puri had also to prove that Chetan Crl. Misc. No.M-5238 of 2011 8 ..
Puri had been taken in illegal detention and was tortured.
In these circumstances, the challans having already been before the court, it cannot be said that the involvement of Chetan Puri in all those cases is false. It may be a case that the criminal activities of Chetan Puri might have come to the notice of the police after registration of FIR No. 100 dated 28.5.2010 and that circumstance does not carry the court anywhere.
In this view of the matter, no case is made out for issuing the directions as sought by the petitioner in this petition. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE May 2nd, 2012 som