Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia vs State Of Punjab on 17 December, 2009
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and
Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003
Date of decision : December 17, 2009
*****
Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia
............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...........Respondent
Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003
Date of decision : December , 2009
*****
Saroj Rani and another
............Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...........Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Pavit Singh Mattewal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate,
Mr.Gursimran Singh, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of Crl.
Revision No.39 of 2003 filed by Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia and Crl. Revision Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [2] No.40 of 2003 filed by Saroj Rani and another for quashing of order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala ordering framing of charge under Sections 376, 511, 294, 354, 506 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.76 dated 19.2.2002 registered under Sections 376, 511, 294, 354, 341, 506, 175, 186, 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Patiala.
Facts of the case are taken from Crl. Revision No.39 of 2003 filed by J.S Ahluwalia. Annexure P-5 is the copy of FIR No.76 registered in view of the statement of Sharu Rana and the FIR is reproduced as under:
"It is submitted that I had taken admission in MA (I ) in 2000-2001 in the Fine Arts Department of Punjabi University, Patiala. After some time the prevailing atmosphere in the department came before my eyes. Wrong things are happening in the department. Four students left the department after seeing ill-treatment and wrong things in the department.
After this I gave a written complaint dated 28.01.2002 to the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala.
Instead of taking action on my complaint, I was asked to keep my mouth shut and given threats if I would not do so, then I would have to face consequences. Due to that I feel that the Vice Chancellor was behind all this. About this I made a written complaint to the Hon'ble Governor on 06.02.2002. When no action was taken on it, then I sent a registered letter dated 07.02.2002 to the Governor that the Vice Chancellor Shri Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia was putting pressure on me to Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [3] withdraw the complaint. Smt. Saroj, the Head of my department was continuously threatening me. I apprehend danger to my life because I am still getting threats from the Vice Chancellor on telephone.
Before this, the department was compelled to do decoration at the time of reception of son of the Vice Chancellor. Compelled by the instructions of Madam Saroj, I used to go there.
On 18th January, I was compelled to stay back after the time of the department for preparing panels because the department was to go to Delhi. After this, on the asking of research scholar Miss Aman, I was caught by arm by Jaspal and compelled to go with him to do telephone and bad jokes were used against me and made wrong gestures. Even till now, Mr. Jaspal is continuously chasing me. Along side Miss Aman gives threats to me.
At the University functions also, wrong gestures were made against me by the Vice Chancellor.
It is therefore, requested that legal action be taken against the Vice Chancellor Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, Madam Saroj ( Head), Miss Aman Research Scholar and Mr. Jaspal ( Department employee) because threats to kill me are still continuing from them."
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that initially complaint (Annexure P-1) dated 28.1.2002 was sent by Saru Rana Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [4] (complainant). Complaint was addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala i.e petitioner, J.S Ahluwaia. On receipt of Annexure P-1, complaint was sent to Principal Secretary (Home), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 2.2.2002(Annexure P-2) by J.S Ahluwalia for necessary action. Annexure P-1 is reproduced as under:-
"I am bringing to your kind notice the treatment of mental harassment meted out to me during the last about 1-3/4 years. The painful situation is that all this is being done by misusing your name, under your name.
I had taken admission to M.A. 1 in the Fine Arts in the year 2000-2001. Immediately after getting admission I sensed the kind of atmosphere prevailing in the department of Fine Arts - the atmosphere which does not go well with the Institution concerned with the future of the students. One such instance of the wrong doings going on the department is that four students were compelled to leave the department in one day. Out of these, two students had been to Dehradun ( University Regional Centre); they told me that we had been given code words Pepsi etc. and that they were made to remain attendant to the Vice Chancellor. God knows what behaviour they underwent that along with two other students left the department. That they had paid full hostel and department fees.
At the moment these research scholars more than the Professors are doing high handedness under your name, Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [5] especially, Aman. Whenever a function is held then I along with other girls have been assigned duties such as making rangoli and doing decoration. N o work is done from morning till evening but work starts after 5.00 p.m. continuing till late in the night. Some days passed. On 17/18 January, 2002 we were detained for making panels for the Delhi function and not allowed to go to the hostel. At about 8/8.30 p.m. the research scholar, Aman in very bad gestures and language compelled me to go with Mr. Jaspal to phone up the girls hostel. Though the phone could have been done from the department itself. But Aman in bad style asked Jaspal to take me out and Aman murmured with another research scholar, Shalu and she started laughing at me. Our hostel or guardians should have been informed in keeping us late at night in the department for the said work. From the bad gestures mentioned above I felt that I was not safe so I took a friend for doing the telephone call. Next day I do not know what complaint was made to Madam Saroj that she (Dr. Saroj) insulted me before all the students which upset me mentally. When on 22.01.2002, we were to go for the decoration work in connection with the Seminar on Maharaja Ranjit Singh at New Delhi, then Aman and Sukhranjan told me that the Vice Chancellor wanted that all the girl students should wear white suits with Phulkari Dupatta which were liked by the Vice Chancellor. Such a misbehavior continued with me in Delhi also. Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [6] As you know we have always been ready for decoration work for all University functions whether at the campus or outside campus function, so much so, we did decoration at the Diwali Mela and also on the occasion of the reception function of your son, we were asked to decorate your house and we worked there day and night.
Thus so much factionalism has been created among the students in the department that we are stopped from talking to each other and wrong things are spread among the students against each other. When I protested at Delhi, research scholar, Aman threatened to slap me and she said that we have 240 marks for practical and that I can also be brought down from the position of topper as in the case of an old student.
Here I want to tell you that I have always remained among first five toppers in the college and University and my work has always received praises. I have earned for the University National level prizes, awards and invitation in workshops and exhibitions but now I fear that after this complaint of mine I might be removed from the department dishonestly, my marks could be decreased or there might be an effort to declare me fail.
I am an artist, I do not like to attend upon VVIPs in well dressed style for presenting bouquets or serve tea to them. For this reason, I have been mentally tortured for quite a long time.
Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [7] Sir, I am very much mentally upset. This issue is now in my parents knowledge and with their consent, this issue is kept before you now so that next time no other students are meted out such behaviour.
Sir, as you are the Head of the Institution, I am sure you will pay attention to my request and will take suitable action against it as soon as possible so that in future I do not face such harassment.
I am not opposed to anyone. Further, if I have committed any mistake in writing this letter, then I seek pardon."
After that this letter was sent to Principal Secretary, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2) by Mr. J.S Ahluwalia, then complaint Annexure P-3 dated 6.2.2002 was sent to the Governor/Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala. Allegation of the complainant was that the girl students are being harassed at the instance of the Vice Chancellor.
Third complaint (Annexure P-4) dated 7.2.2002 was sent to the Governor/Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala in continuation to the complaint dated 6.2.2002 (Annexure P-3). In Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4 no specific allegation of harassment has been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner. Allegation was that the girl students are being harassed at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor. There is not a word in any of the complaint that up to 7.2.2002, Vice Chancellor had made an attempt to rape Saru Rana or threatened her to withdraw complaints. Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [8] After the registration of FIR No.76 dated 19.2.2002, another complaint dated 20.2.2006 (Annexure P-6) was sent to the Chairman, Human Rights, Punjab on the allegation that complaint dated 28.1.2002 was sent to Vice Chancellor but no action has been taken till today. Allegation in the complaint (Annexure P-6) is that complainant is being harassed in the Department. Second allegation is that harassment of the complainant is at the instance of Vice Chancellor/Head of the Department. It was further alleged that police has registered a case against her at the instance of another student. Conspiracy has been hatched and she is being pressurized to withdraw the earlier complaints. But story was changed while lodging FIR (Annexure P-5) dated 19.2.2002. First allegation was that wrong things are happening in the Department. Four students have left the Department after seeing ill-treatment and wrong things. On 28.1.2002, written complaint was sent to Vice Chancellor but no action was taken. Vice Chancellor is pressurizing her to withdraw the complaint. Head of the Department namely, Smt. Saroj is continuously threatening her. Her life and liberty is in danger at the instance of the Vice Chancellor. She is getting threats from Vice Chancellor on telephone. Department was compelled to decorate the venue at the time of reception of the son of the Vice Chancellor. As compelled by the Head of the Department, she had to decorate the venue. On 18.1.2002 she was compelled to stay back by Research Scholar Ms. Aman after office hours to prepare panel because the Department was to go to Delhi. She was caught from her arm by Jaspal and compelled to accompany him to telephone. Jaspal used to chase her and Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [9] Aman used to threaten her. In the FIR also, no allegation against Vice Chancellor. Complainant was a student of First Year of Master of Fine Arts. J.S.Ahluwalia was appointed as Vice Chancellor when Ruling Party was Akali Dal. Complaint seems to be filed at the instance of opposition. First occurrence was dated 17/18.1.2002. Second occurrence is dated 30.1.2002. As per story, complainant through Saroj and Ms. Aman was summoned to the office of vice Chancellor on 30.1.2002, at 4.30 p.m. Complainant had gone to the office of Vice Chancellor and was requested to sit in the retiring room. After five minutes, vice Chancellor had also arrived in the retiring room and sat on the sofa. Main allegation is that he started saying that "Saru such like complaints should not be made co-operation helps a lot" then with bad intention had caught hold of her from right arm and pulled her towards himself. After giving a push to the Vice Chancellor, complainant came out of the retiring room then informed her mother, Sultana begum alias Amrinder Kaur on telephone. Statement of the complainant is dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-8). If on 30.1.2002, Vice Chancellor had summoned the complainant to his office through Head of the Department or Ms. Aman then very strange that at 4.30 p.m when the University was open, Vice Chancellor made an attempt to rape Saru Rana in his retiring room. Room was not bolted from inside. Saru Rana was not forced to remove her clothes. Vice Chancellor had also not removed his clothes and if the occurrence dated 30.1.2002 was genuine then why a report on 19.2.2002. Immediately after the incident, complaints could be sent to different authorities. Story as per the FIR is totally different from the first version of the complainant dated 28.1.2002. Vice Chancellor had Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [10] filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C and bail application under Section 438 was disposed of as all the offences were bailable.
Statement of the mother of the complainant is Annexure P-11 dated 4.3.2002. According to the complainant, immediately after the incident, matter was brought to the notice of her mother i.e Sultana Begum but no explanation why statement of Sultana Begum was not recorded immediately after registration of the FIR. After the registration of FIR on 19.2.2002, statement of mother or father could easily be recorded. There was no idea to record the statement of Sultana Begum on 4.3.2002. Statement of Sultana Begum is to the effect that girls were being harassed to do wrong things. Saroj and Ms. Aman are responsible. That means present FIR is the result of political vendetta. Congress party was adamant to remove the Vice Chancellor who was supported by the Akali party. To humiliate and tarnish the image of responsible officer like the Vice Chancellor, very easy to file complaints through one student and to get registered an FIR, when the political party opposing the Vice Chancellor was not in a position to remove him from the post of Vice Chancellor. Then noble method was adopted by the opposition by getting a criminal case registered through one student that wrong things are being done in the Department at the instance of Vice Chancellor.
Learned counsel for Saroj Rani and Ms. Aman stated that Saroj Rani was the Head of the Department whereas Ms. Aman was Research Scholar. According to the story, above said ladies had compelled Saru Rana to visit the office of Vice Chancellor so that Vice Chancellor is in a position to rape Saru Rana. Next allegation of the complainant is that she was Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [11] caught hold by Jaspal Singh but in view of the invididual act of Jaspal Singh, no prima facie case is made out to frame charge because in the complaint dated 6.2.2002 and 7.2.2002, no allegation that Vice Chancellor had made an attempt to rape Sharu Rana on 30.1.2002 at 4.30 PM. As per the first version, no prima facie case is made out to frame charge under Section 354 IPC. Ms. Aman and Saroj Rana cannot be charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 511 and 107 IPC. At the most charge can be framed under Section 354 IPC. Offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC was not added initially but later on under political pressure after recording the statements of mother and father of Saru Rana, offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC was added.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that initially when bail application was instituted then reply by the State was that all the offences are bailable, but later on under political pressure offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC was added. In case, petitioner had bad intention to commit the crime then there was no idea to forward the first complaint Annexure P-1 dated 28.1.2002 to Principal Secretary Home vide letter Annexure P-2 dated 2.2.2002. Sole idea to implicate the petitioner was to remove him from the post of Vice Chancellor of Punjabi university. When the opposite party failed to achieve the objective, then story was concocted. Complaints were got filed on different dates and later on offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC was got added and this fact is clear from the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C (Annexure P-7), disposed of on 4.3.2002. State counsel stated that all the offences are bailable so in view of the statement of the State counsel bail application was Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [12] disposed of with a direction to the State that if non-bailable offences are to be added then one day's clear notice in writing is to be given to the petitioner. Argued that in view of different complaints, no prima facie case is made out under any of the Sections of the IPC. Continuance of the FIR is a clear-cut misuse of process of law because FIR is dated 19.2.2002 and vide order dated 24.1.2003, further proceedings were stayed. Reliance was placed on (i) 1983(1) RCR (Crl.) 286, Rameshwar vs. State of Haryana; (ii) 2004 Crl.L. J. 326, Bisheshwar Murmu vs. State of Bihar; (iii) 2004(2) JT 274, Aman Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana; (iv) 2006(4) RCR (Crl.) 603, Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar, and (v) 2007 Crl.L.J. 3227, Trinath Bhoi vs. State of Orissa.
State counsel argued that as per story, an attempt was made to rape the complainant. Challan was rightly presented. If no offence punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC is made out, then offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is made out.
Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was the student of Fine Arts. Complainant was sent to the office of Vice Chancellor by Head of Department and Research Scholar. Vice Chancellor had made an attempt to rape the complainant. Bail order (Annexure P-9) shows that Vice Chancellor in the month of June, 1999 had gone to Dehradun with his PA, Ms. Kiran and some other girls, Ms. Preeti, Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Smt. Saroj. Vice Chancellor had sexual intercourse with his PA and others. Later on Vice Chancellor had gone to Massuri and after taking liquor had distributed bangles/clothes to the students. Vice Chancellor remained in the room with Preeti. After evidence, Court is to Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [13] opine whether Vice Chancellor had the intention to rape. From the perusal of the documents on file, trial Court rightly opined that a prima face case is made out to frame charge. Requested to dismiss the petitions.
Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, one of the petitioners, was serving as Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala, at the time of alleged occurrence. Madam Saroj was Head of Department, whereas Miss Aman was the Research Scholar. Complainant Saru Rana was the student of MA- II, Fine Arts.
Annexure P-1 is the first complaint dated 28.1..2002 by Saru Rana to the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala. Complaint was reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. According to the complaint, there was no allegation against the Vice Chancellor. Grievance of the complainant was that the atmosphere prevailing in the Department of Fine Arts was not well. 4 students were compelled to leave the Department, but no date when they had left the Department, no complaint by those students, either against the Vice Chancellor or Head of Department or any other Research Scholar. According to the complainant, 4 students, who had left the department, informed her that they were given code words Pepsi etc. and were made to remain attendant to the Vice Chancellor.
Second allegation is that behaviour of the Research Scholars is worst than the Professors. Whenever there is a function in the University, then girl students, including the complainant, were directed to make rangoli etc. First occurrence was on 17/18.1.2002 when the complainant was detained for making panels for Delhi function. Complainant is not clear whether she was detained on 17th or 18th or on both dates by the Vice Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [14] Chancellor or Head of the Department. Further allegation of the complainant is that Aman compelled her to accompany Jaspal. Aman murmured with another Research Scholar Shalu and Shalu started laughing at her. Matter was brought to the notice of Madam Saroj, Head of Department, but Madam Saroj had insulted the complainant in the presence of other students.
On 22.1.2002, there was a seminar in Delhi. Aman and Sukhranjan informed the complainant that the Vice Chancellor wanted that girl students should wear white suits with phulkari dupatta. Last allegation is that factionalism was created amongst the students, so that one student cannot talk with the other. When the complainant protested in Delhi, then Research Scholar Aman threatened to slap the complainant by saying that out of 240 marks for practical, the complainant can be brought down from the position of topper.
On receipt of complaint dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure P-1), the complaint was sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, by the Vice Chancellor. If the Vice Chancellor had the intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant, then there was no idea to send the complaint (Annexure P-1) to the Principal Secretary (Home), vide letter dated 2.2.2002 (Annexure P-2). In Annexure P-1 dated 28.1.2002, no allegation against the Vice Chancellor. Head of the Department or Vice Chancellor are to direct the participants as to which dress is to be worn. Participants in the seminar have no say that he or she is not to wear the dress as per direction of Head of the Department or any other official deputed by the Vice Chancellor to attend the seminar. Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [15] After complaint dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure P-1), second complaint dated 6.2.2002 (Annexure P-3) was sent to the Governor/Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala, to the effect that earlier complaint (Annexure P-1) was sent to the Vice Chancellor about the harassment of the girl students, but no action by the Vice Chancellor. In para 2 of the complaint dated 6.2.2002 (Annexure P-3), allegation of the complainant is that she is being targeted by the authorities and now she is convinced that everything is being done at the instance of Vice Chancellor. In Annexure P-3 again, there is not a word that Vice Chancellor attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant or Head of the Department or any other Research Scholar had compelled the complainant to attend the office of the Vice Chancellor with an idea that in the office, Vice Chancellor is to make an attempt to rape the complainant. Complaints Annexures P-3 and P-4 are reproduced as under:
Annexure P-3:
"On 28th Jan., 2002, I wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala, about the harassment of girl students including me. After this complaint, harassment increased many folds, instead of any inquiry or action.
I am being targeted by the authorities. Now I am convinced that everything is being done at the instance of Vice Chancellor.
Sir, I feel threatened and insecure. Please intervene immediately to save my life and career."
Annexure P-4:
Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [16] "Continuation to my application dated 6.2.2002 (copy enclosed), it is again brought to your kind notice that on 28th Jan., 2002, I wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala, about the harassment of girl students including me. After this complaint, harassment increased many folds, instead of any inquiry or action.
I am being targeted by the authorities. Now even the police has also started harassing me and I have to seek remedy for the same from the Court (copies enclosed). From this, I am now convinced that everything is being done at the instance of the Vice Chancellor.
Sir, I feel threatened and insecure, please intervene immediately to save my life and career. You are also requested to please give me date and time to explain the position in person."
After second complaint (Annexure P-3), third complaint dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure P-4) was sent on the allegation that harassment of girl students increased manifolds, instead of any inquiry or action. Even the police started harassing the complainant. Harassment of the complainant is at the instance of Vice Chancellor. In the third complaint (Annexure P-4), allegation of the complainant is that harassment of girl students is at the instance of Vice Chancellor. When complaint (Annexure P-1) was sent to the Vice Chancellor and if the harassment of girl students was at the instance of Vice Chancellor, then after complaints (Annexure P-3 and P-4), Vice Chancellor, or Head of the Department or any other Research Scholar, Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [17] were not expected to make an attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant.
Ultimately, statement of Saru Rana complainant was recorded on 19.2.2002. On the basis of statement dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-8) of Saru Rana, FIR No.76 dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-5) was recorded. At the time of recording of statement dated 19.2.2002, new story was introduced by the complainant that Vice Chancellor is pressurizing the complainant to withdraw the complaint. Head of Department is continuously threatening her. Vice Chancellor threatened the complainant on telephone. On 18th January, Jaspal had caught hold her from her arm. When there is a function at the University levels or in the University, then wrong gestures were made against her by the Vice Chancellor, but as discussed earlier, if the Vice Chancellor had the intention to misbehave with the complainant or to make an attempt to rape her, then after 17/18.1.2002 or 30.1.2002, complainant could easily make allegation of rape against the Vice Chancellor while sending complaint (Annexure P-3) dated 6.2.2002 or complaint (Annexure P-4) dated 7.2.2002. When there is a function in the University, then Vice Chancellor in the presence of the students, Heads of different Departments, and other employees of the University cannot be expected to misbehave with the complainant. No allegation that all students, Head of Departments, teachers and employees of the University were against the complainant and were siding with the Vice Chancellor. If the Vice Chancellor, in the presence of teachers/students, openly misbehaved with any student, then some of the students or teachers are not to remain silent. They are to raise objection, but very strange that till today Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [18] no complaint by any student, teacher or any employee of the University, except the complainant that the Vice Chancellor is a womanizer or he misbehaves with the girl students.
Annexure P-6 dated 20.2.2002 is the complaint sent to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Punjab, and reproduced as under:-
"I am a student of the Fine Arts Department (Part-II) of Punjabi University, Patiala. I had submitted a complaint dated 28.1.2002 to the Vice Chancellor about the ill treatment being meted out to me in the department in his name. There being no action on my complaint, I then in writing communicated it to Governor who is also Chancellor of the University. But so far no action has been taken on my applications. I request you to save me from the high handedness /cruelty.
I am enclosing copies of my communications sent to the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor. After my complaint of 28.1.2002, the ill treatment towards me by the Vice Chancellor/Head of the Department has increased. Making my one co-student a tool, a police report was got registered against me. Under pressure of the Head of the Department, a complaint by the students of the Department against me was got written addressed to the Chancellor in which effort has been made to defame me fully. Not only this, a conspiracy has been hatched for administrative action against me in which the complainant (myself) has been presented as an accused and I have been directed to appear before the Committee for Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [19] departmental action, though my only fault is that I had brought to their notice high-handedness meted out to me.
After 28.1.2002, I am being pressurised to withdraw that complaint. I am being threatened and I am being followed.
I want to bring to your notice the high-handedness meted out to me and demand necessary action. I appeal for help.
I shall be highly thankful."
Allegation is the same that complaint dated 28.1.2002 was sent to the Vice Chancellor about ill treatment being meted out to her in the department, but no action by the Vice Chancellor. After complaint dated 28.1.2002, harassment of the complainant at the instance of Vice Chancellor/Head of Department increased. At the instance of another student (name not disclosed), a police report was got registered against her. In case another student can approach the police to register a complaint against the complainant, then the complainant is of the view that by making a co-student as a tool, a police report was got registered, then question is whether one political party to oust the Vice Chancellor can make the complainant as a tool by getting an FIR registered and by getting an FIR registered can be expected to tarnish the image of the Vice Chancellor and Head of Department to leave the post.
After registration of FIR No.76, bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed. Learned PP for the State submitted that all the offences are bailable and thus, the bail application is not maintainable. In view of the statement of learned PP for the State, bail application was disposed of vide order dated 4.3.2002 by the Sessions Judge, Patiala. Upto Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [20] 4.3.2002, no case of attempt to rape.
On 19.2.2002, the complainant stated before the police that on 30.1.2002 at 4.30 PM, as per direction of Madam Saroj and Aman, she had gone to the office of the Vice Chancellor. Vice Chancellor had directed her to sit in the retiring room by saying that he is to return within two minutes. Complainant was sitting on the sofa, then after five minutes, the Vice Chancellor came and sat on the same sofa by saying that she (Saru Rana) should not make such like complaints. Cooperation helps a lot. After that with bad intention, the Vice Chancellor had caught hold her from her right arm and pulled her towards himself. By giving push to the Vice Chancellor, the complainant came out of the retiring room. Incident was brought to the notice of her mother and father. In case on 30.1.2002 the Vice Chancellor had attempted to rape the complainant, then why in the complaints, Annexures P-3 dated 6.2.2002, Annexure P-4 dated 7.2.2002 and Annexure P-6 dated 20.2.2002, the complainant failed to mention that on 30.1.2002, the Vice Chancellor had summoned her to his office through Head of Department and one Research Scholar. In the retiring room, the Vice Chancellor had attempted to rape the complainant. In the complaint sent to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Punjab, no allegation qua the occurrence dated 30.1.2002.
After the incident dated 30.1.2002, the complainant had informed her mother and father on telephone, but statement of Sultana Begum, mother of the complainant, was recorded on 4.3.2002. Annexure P- 11 is the copy of the statement of Sultana Begum. FIR was registered on 19.2.2002, then why statement of the mother of complainant was not Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [21] recorded immediately. If on 30.1.2002, the Vice Chancellor had attempted to rape the complainant in his office, then immediately after the occurrence, the complainant was required to send complaints to different authorities. Parents of the complainant should have gone to the University to lodge protest. When there is an attempt to rape unmarried student, then victim is not to remain silent. She is to raise hue and cry. Parents of the victim are also to approach different authorities, but in the present case, parents of the complainant remained silent. No complaint was sent to any authority. No case of the complainant or her parents that they were forced not to send complaints to different authorities. File rather shows that another student of the University reported the matter to the police against the present complainant, but allegation of the complainant is that report was false at the instance of the petitioners. If the petitioners can manage a report against the present complainant, then why the complainant cannot file false complaints against the petitioners at the instance of political party pressurizing the Vice Chancellor to resign.
As discussed earlier, atmosphere in the Fine Arts Department was not good. Girl students were harassed by the Head of Department, but no complaint by the students, who had left the department. For the first time, complaint dated 28.1.2002 was sent by the complainant and that complaint was forwarded to the Principal Secretary (Home), Punjab, by the Vice Chancellor on 2.2.2002. After the complaint was forwarded by the Vice Chancellor, then how Head of the Department or Research Scholar can force the complainant to visit the office of the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor during office hours in the retiring room was not expected to Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [22] make an attempt to rape the complainant. No allegation that the complainant was forced to remove her clothes, and by removing her clothes, when door was not bolted from inside, the Vice Chancellor had forcibly thrown the complainant on the ground or sofa to rape her. If the Vice Chancellor had committed the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, then how the State counsel stated before learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, that bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable because all the offences are bailable.
Annexure P-12 is the copy of the statement of Avtar Singh, father of the complainant. Version of Avtar Singh is that he was informed about the incident by his wife, namely, Sultana Begum. Sultana Begum was sent to Punjabi University, Patiala, on the next day, i.e., 31at January or 1st February, 2002. Sultana Begum had made enquiries from Saru Rana and the University. Sultana Begum was informed that Madam Saroj, Aman, Kiran Sharma and Jaspal are harassing Saru Rana, so as to make her (Saru Rana) the victim of his (Vice Chancellor) lust. Ultimately, complaint dated 19.2.2002 was sent to the SSP, Patiala.
If as per allegation of the complaint, taken to be correct one without evidence, no prima facie case is made out to frame charge under Sections 376/511 IPC.
In Rameshwar's case (supra), case was under Sections 376/511/354 IPC. Accused tried to open string of salwar of the prosecutrix- Prosecutrix gave a kulhari blow- Accused ran away. That means the accused was not determined to have sexual intercourse at all events-No case of attempt to rape under Sections 376/511 IPC.
Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [23] In the present case, if the Vice Chancellor had the intention to rape the complainant, then very easy for the Vice Chancellor to summon a student in the rest house or somewhere else. Vice Chancellor is not to summon a student in the office at 4.30 PM when the University is open. No case of the complainant that retiring room was bolted from inside and there was no one in the office, except the Vice Chancellor. When there is a tussle amongst two political parties or unions and one party is adamant to oust the Vice Chancellor, then very easy to get complaints filed against the Vice Chancellor/ Head of Department through one student, as in the present case.
In Trinath Bhoi's case (supra), as per allegation, the victim had gone to the shop of the accused to purchase a small packet- accused called her inside and took her in his lap and did something by a finger as a result of which, her dress was got wet- No evidence that accused attempted to commit offence of rape- No evidence that accused had undressed himself and an attempt was made to undress the victim- No question of conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC.
In Tarkeshwar Sahu's case (Supra), where there is no penetration, there is no rape. Conviction under Section 354 IPC-Outraging modesty of a woman- Accused slapping on the posterior of a woman in full public view would amount to outraging her modesty. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether the modesty of a woman has been outraged, assaulted or insulted is that the action of the offender should be such that it may be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
Saru Rana, complainant, was a student of MA Second Year, Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [24] whereas the Vice Chancellor was 67 years' old. Immediately on receipt of first complaint dated 28.1.2002, same was sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), vide letter dated 2.2.2002. The Vice Chancellor, being head of the Institution, was expected to advice the complainant being a student of MA Second Year not to file such like complaints on the allegation that girl students are being harassed in the Department and cooperation helps a lot. In the first complaint dated 28.1.2002, not a word against the Vice Chancellor. If allegation was against the Vice Chancellor that girl students are being harassed at the instance of the Vice Chancellor, then there was no idea to send the complaint dated 28.1.2002 to the Principal Secretary (Home). On receipt of complaint dated 28.1.2002, the complainant could easily be summoned with Head of the Department or other students to settle the dispute. To avoid any awkward situation, complaint dated 28.1.2002 was sent to the Principal Secretary (Home). After the complaint was sent, then the complainant cannot complain that no action was taken by the Vice Chancellor. On receipt of complaint dated 28.1.2002, the Vice Chancellor instead of getting a case registered through police, informed the Principal Secretary (Home). After the complaint was sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), then different complaints were sent on 6.2.2002, 7.2.2002 and 20.2.2002, but no reference of the incident dated 30.1.2002 that Vice Chancellor made an attempt to rape the complainant. Occurrence was at about 4.30 PM. University was open. Number of officials were bound to be present in the office of Vice Chancellor. In that situation, very difficult for the Head of the Institution, aged about 67 years, to make an attempt to rape a student of MA IInd Year.
Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [25] In Bisheshwar Murmu's case (supra), FIR was under Sections 376/511/354 IPC on the allegation that accused had caught hold the complainant from her hand-When one of the witnesses reached there, then accused fled away- No allegation in the written complaint that accused attempted to rape on her- No question of conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC.
In Aman Kumar and another's case (supra), FIR under Sections 376/354 IPC- Held that if the accused was determined to have sexual intercourse at all events despite resistance by the prosecutrix, then it would amount to an offence of attempt to commit rape- If there was no intention to commit rape, it would amount to indecent assault upon a woman punishable under Section 354 IPC. To convict the accused under Section 354 IPC, the victim should be a woman, accused must have used criminal force on her intending thereby to outrage her modesty. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. Act of pulling a woman, removing her dress coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman. Knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object.
But in the present case, in the first complaint dated 28.1.2002, not a word against the petitioners. General allegation that female students are being harassed in the Department. In the second complaint dated 6.2.2002 and third complaint dated 7.2.2002, again general allegation that female students are being harassed and in the fourth complaint dated 20.2.2002 to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Punjab, again Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [26] general allegation that female students are being harassed at the instance of Vice Chancellor. Allegations are that four students had left the department. Behaviour of the Research Scholars is worst than the Professors. Whenever there is a function, then girl students are directed to make rangoli and decoration and work starts after 5.00 PM. On one day, Research Scholar Aman directed the complainant to accompany Jaspal to telephone at the Girls Hostel. Matter was brought to the notice of Head of Department. Then the complainant was insulted in the presence of other students. At the time of seminar at Delhi, the girl students were directed to wear white suits with phulkari dupatta. One Research Scholar threatened to slap the complainant by saying that 240 marks are for practical and complainant can be brought down from the position of topper. Whenever there is a function in the University, then Vice Chancellor or Head of Department are to direct the students how to make the arrangements and decorate and whether the participants are to wear a particular dress or not. Students have no say that they are not to make arrangements or decorate the function or they are not to wear a particular dress. When there is a general allegation that female students are being harassed, then I am of the opinion that FIR was got registered with ulterior motive at the instance of political party simply to oust the Vice Chancellor and Head of Department. To run an Institution like the University is very difficult when there is a party fraction amongst the students and teachers. If Vice Chancellor or Head of Department is not liked by a particular section of the students/teachers, then very easy to get complaints filed like the present one against the Vice Chancellor or Head of Department. If no action is taken by the Vice Chancellor or Head of Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [27] Department when the students are not obeying the teachers, then very difficult for the Vice Chancellor or Head of Department to run a University. If as per the complaint like the present one, Vice Chancellor, Head of the Department or head of any other institution is not safe, then by registering a case, one party can oust the other in power. After the party in power is ousted by filing false complaints, then the opposite party is to file frivolous complaints against the other party. This would be very difficult for the Vice Chancellor to maintain law and order in the University. There would be a chaos. Different departments are not to function smoothly. Students are to suffer. Main purpose of educational institutions is to provide best education to the students. Vice Chancellors or Head of the Departments act like parents. In view of the false complaints, police authorities should think twice for registering a case, particularly when no allegation of rape in the complaints, i.e., Annexures P-3 dated 6.2.2002 and Annexure P-4 dated 7.2.2002, sent to the Chancellor. From which telephone number, Vice Chancellor threatened Saru Rana and on which number. Whether Saru Rana had any cell phone. Why no report immediately after the incident dated 30.1.2002 and on which date, there was a function in the University and where and at what time, the Vice Chancellor or other petitioners made or seen the gesture.
Daily we see number of complaints are being filed by one party or the other against the political appointees. No respectable educationist or scholar is to come forward to head the University. In case he is not safe and is to be insulted, harassed or humiliated by getting one complaint or the other. No doubt, all are equal before law, no one is above law, whether he Crl. Rev. No. 39 of 2003 and Crl. Rev. No. 40 of 2003 [28] is Chief Minister, Minister or Head of the Institution. In case any one has committed any offence punishable under law of the land, then he is not to be spared, but in the present case, bald allegations to the effect that girl students are being harassed in the Department. Once the Court is of the opinion that innocent person is being harassed for no fault, then he is to be protected.
After registration of the FIR, the Court is to see whether a prima facie case is made out to frame charge or not under any Section of IPC after going through the documents on the file. But if from the documents on the file, the Court is of the opinion that no prima facie case is made out, then the accused are to be discharged. In the present case, all the complaints are politically motivated and false. From the perusal of the documents on the file, I am of the opinion that no prima facie case is made out to frame charge under Sections 376/511 read with Section 107 IPC, Sections 354, 294 and 506 IPC.
In case prosecution is of the view that at that stage matter was not properly investigated then prosecution would be liable to further investigate the matter and take action as per law.
As a sequel to the above discussion, both the revision petitions are accepted.
December 17, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu/pk JUDGE.