Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neha Monga vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 September, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. M. No.2717-M of 2010
Date of Decision:22.9.2010
Neha Monga
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate on behlaf of
Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab.
****
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to provide protection to the petitioner and that appropriate action be taken against SHO, P.S. Nawanshahr for forcing the petitioner to sign blank papers and make statement before the Tehsildar, Nawanshahr.
Notice of motion was issued and Sr. Superintenent of Police, Gurdaspur, was directed to look into the allegations made in the petition and submit interim report within two weeks.
Thereafter, on 27.7.2010, reply was filed by Superintendent of Police (Operations), District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Nawan Shahr. A copy of the same was also supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who sought time to go through the same and to seek instructions whether service of respondent No.5 is necessary or not.
Crl. M. No.2717-M of 2010 -2-
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instruction whether respondent No.5 needs to be served or not.
Reply by way of a short affidavit of Dinesh Pratap Singh, IPS, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Batala, Police District Batala, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has been filed. It is submitted in para 3 of the said reply as under:
"The above said orders were sent to SHO Police Station Qadian for looking into the allegations made in the petition as per report of SHO Police Station Qadian the statements of the petitioner Neha Monga daughter of Sh. Chaman Lal Monga and Suman Bharwaj wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar, resident of Mohalla Dharampura City Qadian, District Gurdaspur were recorded and from their statements it was revealed that the petitioner Neha Monga d/o Sh. Chaman Lal Monga is presently residing with Summan Bhardwaj wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar at Mohalla Dharampura Qadian since 20 January 2010 and is living peacefully without any fear or threat."
Reply by way of affidavit of Dharam Singh Uppal, PPS, Superintendent of Police, (OPERATIONS), District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, has also been filed. It is clarified in the reply that the petitioner was found in the company of Satinder Kumar accused in FIR No.192 dated 1.12.2009 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station City Nawanshahar. However, since, she was not involved in the said FIR , she was allowed to accompany Mandeep Kumar Anand, her brother-in-law as per her wish. Later, Mandeep Kumar produced her as per the undertaking Crl. M. No.2717-M of 2010 -3- before the Executive Magistrate. As per the reply, it is also clarified as under:
"Finally, the learned Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner, wherein she specifically stated that she was residing with Swami Satinder Nand alias Satinder Kumar Bhardwaj from February, 2009 and now she wants to go alongwith her mother namely Parveen Monga and her brother-in-law, namely Mandeep Anand. In the said statement, she also got recorded that she in fact, got recorded a case FIR under Section 376 IPC at the instance of Satinder Nand and she wants to withdraw the same. The statement was duly certified by the learned Executive Magistrate, Nawanshahar, after the same was signed by the petitioner. A true translated copy of the said statement dated 8.12.2009 is being annexed herewith as Annexure R-2. Finally, the learned Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of Smt. Parveen Monga-mother of the petitioner Neha Monga and Mandeep Anand- her brother-in-law, who took the petitioner alongwith them."
It is also stated in the reply that no signatures of the petitioner were obtained on blank papers.
In the circumstances, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition. However, in case the petitioner has any grievance, she is at liberty to file criminal complaint or avail of any other alternative remedy as available in law.
Disposed of accordingly.
22.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE