Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishvendu @ Vishu Phaughat vs State Of Haryana on 24 March, 2011
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.03.2011
Vishvendu @ Vishu Phaughat
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
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: - Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the CBI.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
ALOK SINGH, J This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.381 of 11.11.2008 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.
Record reveals that an FIR was registered by the police on the application of Smt. Khazani Devi, mother of deceased Anju and maternal-grandmother of deceased Meghna aged 11 years and Parth aged 7 years, contending as under: -
"To SHO Samalkha, it is submitted that on dated 9.11.2008 at about 9.30, we received information that something had happened to my daughter Anju. We CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -2- immediately rushed to Samalkha and at the scene we found the door of the room open and blood oozing out from the head of my daughter Anju and her two children. A revolver was lying there. We are sure that they have been murdered. Matter be investigated at higher level and necessary action be taken against the accused. RTI Applicant Khazani Devi, Mother. Sd/- Ashok Kumar brother, sd/- Jai Bhagwan and Naranjan Singh, uncle of Anju dated 11.11.08 at 6.20 PM."
FIR was initially registered under Section 302 IPC. During the investigation, alleged suicide-note of deceased Anju was recovered, which reads as under: -
"A lady namely Vishvendu has made our house hell. She has defamed and harassed us to such an extent that there always remains tension in our house. She has compelled us to commit suicide. She is responsible for our deaths. She should be hanged to death, otherwise a lady like her would destroy more houses. Sd/- Anju 9.11.08."
Record further reveals that during the investigation, petitioner was found involved in an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has lodged FIR No.248 dated 18.9.2008 under Sections 376/511/292/506/34 IPC at Police Station Ghannaur and FIR No.249 dated 16.6.2008 under Sections 323/506/34 IPC, Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, against Virender Singh Sehrawat and his brother. Police filed cancellation report in FIR No.249 dated 16.6.2008 under Sections 323/506/34 IPC, however, in FIR No.248 dated 18.9.2008 under Sections 376/511/292/506/34 IPC Virender Singh Sehrawat - husband of deceased Anju and father of Meghna and Parth - has been exonerated and challan has been filed against the brother of Virender Singh Sehrawat under Section 292 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -3- petitioner has been falsely implicated on the pressure of Virender Singh Sehrawat, officer with the Haryana Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even if it is found that petitioner has falsely implicated Virender Singh Sehrawat in two FIRs, as stated hereinbefore, it cannot be an abetment or instigation to commit suicide. It is further alleged that even if Anju may have felt and taken the FIRs against her husband badly, it would not amount to mens rea on the part of the petitioner to derive Anju to commit suicide.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that, in fact, it requires thorough investigation as to whether Virender Singh Sehrawat is involved in the murder of his own wife and two children or Anju has committed suicide and has killed his kids because of strange behaviour of Virender Singh Sehrawat. Learned counsel has contended that Virender Singh Sehrawat was posted a SDM Samalkha, District Panipat and thereafter was posted as G.M. Haryana Roadways. He by using his power got implicated present petitioner in the present case while in fact he himself has committed murder of his wife and two kids because his wife used to pressurize him to leave bad habits of harassing other women and other activities which can bring bad name to the family. He further contends that by using his influence he could get clean chit from the police in the rape case filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that further investigation must be got done through CBI as undertook by State counsel on 27.10.2010.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
This Court on 11.6.2010, 30.7.2010, 27.10.2010, 1.12.2010 CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and 23.2.2011 has passed orders as under: -
"Says that allegations of abetment made against the petitioner would be far-fetched. The petitioner had given a long history of the incident pointing finger to the husband of the lady deceased, who was present at the time the alleged suicide took place.
Without commenting anything on merits, notice of motion for 20.7.2010.
In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, she shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. She will join the investigation as and when required.
June 11, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH)
JUDGE"
"It has been submitted by the learned State counsel, on the instructions of DSP Ashok Kumar that an order for further investigation has been passed by the trial court.
To await the result of further investigation (deemed to be u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.), adjourned to 23.9.2010.
Meanwhile, interim order will remain operative.
July 30, 2010 (M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE"
"Reply filed.
State counsel on the instructions of DSP Ashok Kumar, Crime Branch, informs that the State has referred the investigation of this case to CBI.
Let notice be issued to the Senior Standing counsel for CBI for December 1, 2010.
Meanwhile, the petitioner will be entitled to the interim protection already granted by this Court.
October 27, 2010 (M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE"
"On the last date of hearing, it was informed that the State has referred the investigation to CBI. CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -5- Notice was issued to the Senior Standing Counsel for CBI but no one has put in appearance for CBI.
Let fresh notice be issued to the Senior Standing Counsel for CBI, for January 18, 2011.
Interim order to continue.
December 1, 2010 (M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE"
"Learned counsel for the CBI seeks time to prepare the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply a copy of the paper book to the counsel for the CBI during the course of the day.
List on 23.3.2011.
Interim order to continue.
23.02.2011 (Alok Singh) Judge"
Record reveals that statement was made that investigation has been handed over to CBI. Time was sought by the counsel for the CBI, however, all of sudden learned counsel for the CBI has informed on 23.3.2011 that investigation has not been handed over to the CBI as yet. This is very strange.
Petitioner in paragraph No.4 of the petition has stated that Virender Singh Sehrawat, husband of deceased-Anju and father of deceased kids, was very much present in the house when the occurrence took place. Police has received information of the occurrence on telephone but police has not disclosed the name of the person, who has given the information. On spot Madan Singh told the police that he ranged the bell of the residence at 8.30 a.m., but none responded. However, at 9.30 a.m., Virender Singh Sehrawat called Madan Singh CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -6- from the balcony of the house. Madan Singh is not aware as to whether Virender Singh Sehrawat returned in the night. The main gate of the residence was locked from the inside. G.M. (Virender Singh Sehrawat) opened the bolt of the door in gallery from inside and Madan Singh went in. Virender Singh Sehrawat told Madan Singh that all the doors are closed and the children are inside.
Petitioner has further stated in paragraph No.5 of the petition that statement of Virender Singh Sehrawat was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 1.4.2010. Virender Singh Sehrawat has not given any explanation with regard to the incident. He has not stated as to whether he was present in the house at the time of occurrence. He has not disclosed as to how his pistol went in the hands of deceased Anju and how the door of the room was broke opened.
Petitioner has further asserted in paragraph No.12 of the petition that exchange of SMS between Virender Singh Sehrawat and deceased Anju would show that there was fight between the couple.
From the perusal of record, it reveals that it is not stated by the prosecution as well as the counsel for the complainant that petitioner ever met with Anju deceased. Filing of criminal complaints/FIRs against the hushand of Anju would not amount to abetment.
Undisputedly, Anju wife of Virender Singh Sehrawat and his two kids, namely Meghna aged 11 years and Parth aged 7 years, were found dead under mysterious circumstances in the house and Virender Singh Sehrawat was present in the house when dead bodies were recovered; his pistol was used in the occurrence. No other person was present in the house, only deceased and Virender Singh Sehrawat were CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -7- present. Matter requires thorough investigation. This Court feels Virender Singh Sehrawat being Civil Services officer of Haryana Government may be in a position to influence the investigation. A young lady i.e. petitioner has filed two FIRs at earlier point of time against Virender Singh Sehrawat, Civil Services officer for sexual offences and others. Making the petitioner accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC for the abetment to commit suicide on the basis that she has filed criminal complaints against the husband of the deceased, seems to be cooked up story. It seems Haryana Police is not investigating the matter under the influence of Virender Singh Sehrawat.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. The Committee for Protection of Domestic Rights West Bengal & Ors., 2010(2) RCR(Criminal) 141, has held that High Court has power to direct CBI to investigate a cognizable offence even without consent of the Stage Government when High Court is satisfied that for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights it seems to be just and proper.
In the present case civil liberty of the petitioner is at stake; she is being asked to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC merely because she has lodged two FIRs against Virender Singh Sehrawat, husband of deceased Anju. She is not said to have met with deceased Anju, how this would amount to abetment, this Court fails to understand. Three human lives have gone. Virender Singh Sehrawat was present in the house and no other person was present in the house. SMS details and allegations raised by the petitioner create some suspicion to the theory of the suicide.
CRM No. M-17317 of 2010 (O&M) -8- In the opinion of this Court, CBI investigation seems to be just and proper. More particularly on previous dates State counsel has stated that investigation has been handed over to CBI and CBI has sought time and all of a sudden counsel for CBI states that investigation has not been handed over. It creates reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the conduct of the State authorities. In the opinion of this Court, present case must be thoroughly investigated through CBI.
Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Interim anticipatory bail order dated 11.6.2010 is made absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, it is directed that State Government shall hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Bureau of Investigation shall investigate the case.
It is made clear that any observation made is only for the purpose of deciding this application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
(Alok Singh) Judge March 24, 2011 R.S.