Rekha Rani vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner, a lady, has filed this petition for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2 to protect her life and liberty at the hands of respondent Nos.4 and 5. She has prayed for further direction for respondent No. 2 to record her statement under supervision and not to hand over custody ofthe petitioner to respondent Nos.4 and 5 in case FIR No. 190 dated 11.9.2007, lodged under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 506 IPC.

Earlier one Rakesh Kumar had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46337 M of 2007, disclosing that the allegation of abduction had been made by father of prosecutrix (present petitioner). It was stated that she is major and has not complained of any abduction. The prayer made in the petition was for quashing of the FIR, which was dismissed by observing that the prosecutrix would be at liberty to make any statement before the investigating agency. Now this petition has been filed by the above lady, Rekha Rani, who is allegedly abducted.

The facts, on the basis of which the present petition, seeking protection is filed, would make a strange reading. Complaining that her parents wants her to marry a person of their choice for which the petitioner is not willing, she has shifted to live with some of her relative at Jalandhar. Father of the petitioner has lodged complaint of abduction. Earlier, Rakesh Kumar had sought quashing of this FIR saying that the present petitioner has not made any complaint about her abduction being major. This petition, however, was dismissed by observing that she can very well go and make statement before the police. Now an approach is made through her with a prayer as noticed above. The petitioner apparently is staying with this family without having any relationship of the kind which may permit them to have better right over her parents.

This seems to be another mode of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, when an earlier petition for quashing stand already dismissed. Seeking protection for going and making statement before the police would appear meaningless as it may sound strange to notice that for going to the police, the petitioner is needing police protection. No perception of threat or other such allegations are made out from the petition, which may call for any interference in this case. She says that she should not be handed over to her parents when she goes to make a statement before police.

Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed in Criminal Misc. No. 71661 M of 2006 (Sandhya Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors.) to say that protection was provided to Sandhya Sharma,petitioner in that case, who was to appear before the trial Court. There is nothing to indicate in the case of Sandhya Sharma (supra) that she was staying with her relations as is the case of the petitioner. The petitioner in the present case is also not required to appear before the trial Court. The observations made in this order, as such, would not attract to the facts of the present case. In any case, order passed in Criminal Misc. No. 71661 M of 2006 does not lay down any ratio of law, which may be required to be followed. The counsel then refers to the case of Joginder Pal Vohra v. State of Haryana 1997 (4) R.C.R. 584. The ratio of law laid down in this case does not seem to be attracted to the facts of the present case. While making observations in regard to the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., this Court observed that if without making any addition or omission in the complaint, the High Court finds that the attempt on part of State or the complainant is to harass or humiliate a citizen, the High Court will rescue the rights of such a person. This observation in isolation is being made by the counsel. It is also observed by the High Court in the same very judgment that the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are supposed to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases. FIR is not against the petitioner. Rather some one else is contesting through the petitioner, when her approach is already negatived. Moreover, this was a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 where the quashing of the complaint was sought. Present one is a case where the petitioner is making a prayer for getting her statement recorded by providing her protection.

The counsel then refers to Mary Angel v. State of Tamil Nadu 1999 (2) R.C.R. 736 to say that legislative enactment can not provide for procedure in all situations and accordingly the Court, in exercise of inherent powers, apart from the express provisions of law, can exercise those powers for proper discharge of duties. There is no dispute in regard to the powers, which can be exercised u/s 482 Cr.P.C. It will depend upon facts of each case and ofcourse in the discretion of the Court exercising such jurisdiction.Case of Tilak Raj v. State of Haryana 1998 (2) RCR 147 is the one where the FIR was quashed on the basis of a statement made by the girl that she had married the accused. There is no such averment in the petition that petitioner has married any one. Petitioner has left her parents house and staying with stranger. The earlier petition was filed for quashing of FIR is already dismissed. There is no prayer for quashing FIR now made. Liberty isalready granted to the petitioner to make any statement before the investigating agency,which is investigating this case. No case for interference, as such, is made out.

Dismissed.