Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anju Bansal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 September, 2009
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008
Date of decision: 25.9.2009
Anju Bansal
... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Ms.Anju Bansal, petitioner in person.
Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate,
for respondent No.7.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Anju Bansal filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR under Sections 376/511/354/34 IPC etc. against respondent No.7 Rakesh Kumar and his family members.
Petitioner is the resident of District Bathinda. Petitioner met with Rakesh Kumar at Khurana Marriage Bureau, Bathinda. After taking tea, Rakesh Kumar took the petitioner to a separate room and bolted the room from inside and started shameless things with her. The petitioner raised objection, then Rakesh Kumar replied that he will marry her. Again, Rakesh Kumar met the petitioner at Bathinda. The petitioner was taken towards the fields, where Rakesh Kumar made physical relations with the petitioner. After that, Rakesh Kumar kept on meeting the petitioner occasionally. During this period, Rakesh Kumar developed sexual relations with the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar was requested to solemnize marriage. Then Rakesh Kumar replied that his family members are not ready to marry with the petitioner. One day, the petitioner had gone to the shop of Rakesh Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 2 Kumar-respondent No.7 at Gidderbaha, where brother of Rakesh Kumar and other persons were present. They threatened the petitioner to eliminate her, and by summoning the police, they handed over her to the police. SHO, PS Gidderbaha, misbehaved with the petitioner and a compromise was got written through coercion and under undue influence. Complaints were sent to the higher authorities, but no action till today. One complaint was handed over to the SP (HQ), Bathinda. There was an enquiry by the DSP (City), Bathinda. The petitioner was summoned by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had levelled specific allegations against Rakesh Kumar and his family members, but no FIR was registered. Rakesh Kumar and his family members are the supporters of Akali Party. Instead of taking action against Rakesh Kumar, the police is harassing the petitioner and her family members.
Notice of motion was issued.
Respondents No.1 to 6 filed joint reply in the shape of affidavit of Ashish Chaudhary, IPS, SSP, Bathinda, and contested the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner gave an application to the SP (HQ), Bathinda, on 17.7.2008. There was an enquiry by the DSP (City), Bathinda. Statement of petitioner was also recorded. Rakesh Kumar got recorded in his statement that he was married to one Sonia d/o Vijay Kumar about 13/14 years back and from this wedlock, he has two sons. Sonia had died on 3.9.2007. The petitioner is a blackmailer. She has also extorted money from the boys of Goniana and Jagraon by making such like false applications. Allegations of the petitioner were found to be false.
Respondent No.7 filed separate reply and contested the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petition was filed to blackmail and Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 3 pressurize the answering respondent to marry the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had moved a complaint to the SHO, Gidderbaha, but the complaint was found to be false. Again, complaint was sent to the SSP, Bathinda, on the same very allegations. After enquiry, that complaint was found to be false. During enquiry, parents and other relatives of the petitioner gave in writing that marriage talk amongst the petitioner and respondent No.7 Rakesh Kumar failed due to temperamental differences. In case the police is not going to register a case, then the petitioner can file a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. Wife of the answering respondent had died on 3.9.2007 due to brain haemorrhage. After that, Narain Kataria, owner of Kataria Marriage Bureau, Gidderbaha, brought a proposal for marriage of answering respondent with the petitioner. A meeting was arranged amongst the parties. Answering respondent refused to marry the petitioner. The matter was also brought to the notice of the police and denied all other allegations.
Petitioner, present in person, argued that Rakesh Kumar had met her at Khurana Marriage Bureau, Bathinda. After taking tea, she was taken to a separate room. The room was bolted from inside. Then Rakesh Kumar misbehaved with the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar agreed to marry her. Later on, Rakesh Kumar again met her at Bathinda. She was taken towards fields, where she was raped. Rakesh Kumar developed sexual relations with her. She was raped many times by Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar was requested to solemnize marriage with her, but he refused to marry. Complaints were sent to different authorities, but no action till today. The petitioner requested that a criminal case may be registered against Rakesh Kumar and his family members.
Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 4
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.7 argued that complaint was sent by the petitioner to the SSP, Bathinda. After enquiry, the complaint was found to be false. Before registering an FIR, the police can make a preliminary enquiry. Before the Enquiry Officer, parents of the petitioner had apologized. The petitioner is a blackmailer. In case no FIR is registered in view of enquiry report, then remedy with the petitioner is to file a complaint under Sections 190/200 Cr.P.C.
I have heard the petitioner in person, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.7, and have gone through the file.
In para 2 of the petition, the petitioner failed to mention on which date, month and year, she had met respondent No.7 at Khurana Marriage Bureau, Bathinda, and at what time, respondent No.7 misbehaved with the petitioner in a separate room.
In para 3 of the petition, allegation is that the petitioner had met respondent No.7 at Bathinda. The petitioner was taken towards the fields, where she was raped, but again, date, time, month and year were not mentioned when the petitioner was raped. The petitioner is major. Allegation of the petitioner is that for about 6-7 months, she was raped repeatedly by respondent No.7. But in the complaint, there is not a word on which date and at what time and where the petitioner was raped.
Allegation of respondent No.7 is that he was married and has two issues. But unfortunately, wife of respondent No.7 had died due to brain haemorrhage. File shows that there was a move for marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.7, but respondent No.7 had refused to marry the petitioner.
Annexure P-1 is the statement of the petitioner, but in the statement, again date, time, month and year is not mentioned when the Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 5 petitioner was raped. In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., there is not a word that respondent No.7 demanded Rs.20.00 lacs from the petitioner, but in the statement (Annexure P-1), allegation of the petitioner is that she belongs to a poor family. Opposite party, i.e., respondent No.7 Rakesh Kumar demanded Rs.20.00 lacs from her.
Annexure P-3 is the copy of complaint sent to the SSP, Bathinda, showing this fact that the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court against Rakesh Kumar and his family members and to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the petition, a false FIR was got registered against the petitioner and her family members. The case is pending for 16.2.2009.
Annexure R-4 is the copy of Panchayatnama/apology deed signed by the petitioner and her father, showing the fact that there was a move for the marriage of the petitioner with Rakesh Kumar, but due to temperamental differences, marriage of petitioner with Rakesh Kumar was not possible. The petitioner had gone to the shop of Rakesh Kumar with a proposal of her marriage with Rakesh kumar, but Rakesh Kumar replied that petitioner should not visit his shop. The petitioner and her relations did not want action against any one. No fault of any party.
Annexure R-5 is the copy of joint statement of Kewal Krishan, Ex. President, MC, Gidderbaha Mandi, Sarup Chand, Vice Chairman, Market Committee, Gidderbaha, Parshotam Dass and Sudhir Kumar. Annexure R-5 shows that the petitioner is a blackmailer. She has already extorted money by making false applications against the boys of Goniana Mandi and Jagraon. Similarly, this complaint against Rakesh Kumar. Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 6 Kewal Krishan, who had signed Annexure R-5, had also signed apology deed (Annexure R-4) singed by the petitioner and her father.
In 2007(1) RCR (Crl.) 1, Parkash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that information disclosing cognizable offence laid with officer incharge of police station- Police Officer has statutory duty to register the case- `Reasonableness' or `credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.
In 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 815, Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others, police not registering FIR-Complainant to file complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C.- Writ seeking direction to police to register the case not to be entertained- Information lodged with police disclosing cognizable offence- Police ought to register FIR- If police fails to do so, then aggrieved party can lay a complaint before Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.
In 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 762, Rajinder Singh Katoch vs. Chandigarh Administration and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that police can make preliminary enquiry before registering FIR. Report lodged with police- Police has a right to make a preliminary enquiry whether complaint had any substance or not-No FIR is registered when there is no substance.
In 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 392, Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP and others, held that police not registering FIR- Magistrate has power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order police to register FIR though such power is not expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not to be entertained-Petitioner should be relegated to Magistrate- Police registering the case, but not conducting proper Crl.Misc.No.M-22460 of 2008 7 investigation- Complainant can approach the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.- In case Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits its final report.
But in the present case, the petitioner is not clear about the date, time month and year when the offence was committed and where.
In 2008(2) RCR (Crl.) 373, Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal complaint lodged with police- Where no action is taken by police, the informant's remedy lies in filing complaint under Sections 190/200 Cr.P.C., but a writ petition in such a case is not to be entertained.
In the present case, allegation of the petitioner is that Rakesh Kumar developed illicit relations with her. She was raped repeatedly with a promise to marry her, but later on, Rakesh Kumar refused to marry the petitioner. The petitioner is a major. Immediately after the crime, complaint was not sent. There was a move of marriage of the petitioner with Rakesh Kumar, but Rakesh Kumar did not agree. So remedy with the petitioner is to file a complaint under Sections 190/200 Cr.P.C.
In view of all discussed above, petition without merit is dismissed.
25.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE