Renu Bala and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J

Petitioners had approached this Court by filing this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C, for issuance of direction to the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the protection of their life and liberty and not to interfere in their married life at the behest of respondent Nos.4 to 7 and other relatives and friends. On the basis of the contentions raised on 18.08.2011, this Court passed the following order:

When the case is taken up for hearing, Mr. A.D.S.Ghuman, Advocate appears and says that he would be putting appearance on behalf of the parents of the girl. Mother of the girl alongwith some of the relatives is present in the Court. The petitioner-girl is then made to sit with her mother in the chamber. Thereafter the mother has expressed her desire that she is ready to marry the girl with petitioner No. 2 immediately after Diwali. When asked, the petitioner-girl, however, refuses to accept his proposal and says that she would like to go with her newly wedded husband. Petitioner No. 1 is permitted to live with petitioner No. 2.

Notice of motion for 21.10.2011. Mr. A.D.S.Ghuman, Advocate appearing for private respondents may file reply.

In the meantime, the petitioners may approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, if they feel threatened in any manner, who shall take action in accordance with law.

It is also relevant to refer to the various orders passed by this Court from time to time which reads thus:

21.10.2011

Counsel for the petitioners points out that before the petitioners could approach the Senior Superintendent of Police as per the directions issued by this Court on 18.10.2011, the relatives of petitioner No. 1 alongwith local police had come to the house of petitioner No. 2 and given beating to the said petitioner as well as his brother. Both the injured have got conducted their MLR showing injuries. Still, no case has been registered. Instead the police has registered a case against petitioner No. 2 and has been taken in custody. Petitioner No. 1 alone is present today.

ASI Ram Bhajan has come present from Police Station Taragarh District Pathankot. On being questioned by the Court, the ASI submits that petitioner No. 2 has been arrested for an offence u/s 307 IPC. Apparently, the allegations made by counsel for the petitioners are genuine. Instead of obeying the direction issued by this Court to see and protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, the police has acted in a most highhanded manner to take contrary action by registering the case against the petitioner-husband himself. Prima facie, I am of the view that police action is to circumvent and byepass the order passed by this Court. I am not ready to accept that the person, who has appeared before this Court to seek protection would go and pick up fight with the family of the girl. The case registered against petitioner No. 2 is apparently false and made up. The police appears to have joined hands with the family of girl/petitioner No. 1. In the bargain all have not only violated law but also the order passed by this Court. The situation cannot be tolerated. The Court cannot be a helpless spectator to such onslaught on the liberty of citizen. The Courts are also not helpless either.

Notices be issued to SHO Sh. Vipin Kumar (name deposed by ASI Ram Bhajan) and SSP, Pathankot as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them. Notices be served to SSP as well as to SHO through the State counsel. Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Addl. A.G. Punjab would ensure the copy of the order is served to the SSP and SHO immediately.

On an oral request made by counsel for the petitioners, Sh. Aman Saini (petitioner No. 1) is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot before whom he shall be produced by the police immediately. In the meantime, the petitioner may move proper application for bail before this Court bringing out all the facts as stated. SSP as well as SHO shall remain present before the Court in person. Mr. Mann would serve the order immediately and ensure compliance. The SSP would be personally held responsible to protect the life and liberty of both the petitioners till next date of hearing.

The compliance report be submitted to the Registry of this Court by tomorrow i.e. 22.10.2011 by 12.00 noon.

Adjourned to 01.11.2011.

Copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court.

01.11.2011

Notice of the application for 16.11.2011.

Mr. G.S. Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The State may file response to the additional pleadings now placed on record by the petitioners. Counsel be ready to assist the Court as to why judicial enquiry be not ordered in this case to know the factual background.

Adjourned to 16.11.2011. SSP and SHO shall remain present on the adjourned date.

16.11.2011.

In compliance of order dated 1.11.2011, Surinder Kumar Kalia, SSP Pathankot, Vipan Kumar SI/SHO, PS Taragarh, ASI Ram Bhagan, PS Taragarh, are present in the Court today.

On request, adjourned to 17.11.2011.

17.11.2011

In compliance of order dated 1.11.2011, Surinder Kumar Kalia, SSP Pathankot, Vipan Kumar SI/SHO, PS Taragarh, ASI Ram Bhagan, PS Taragarh, are present in the Court today.

State counsel prays for time to file an affidavit on behalf of the SSP or any police officer concerned, to indicate how and under what circumstances the petitioners were arrested.

On his request, adjourned to 23.11.2011.

23.11.2011.

State counsel prays for time to file additional affidavit Adjourned to 02.12.2011.

02.12.2011

On request made by counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 05.12.2011.

05.12.2011

The petitioners had approached this Court by way of present miscellaneous petition to seek protection which came up for hearing on 18.10.2011. At the time of motion hearing, the parents of the girl appeared through their counsel who had put in appearance before the Court as soon as the petition was taken up for hearing. The mother of the girl (petitioner No. 1) prayed for an opportunity to meet her daughter which was granted. After the meeting the mother had expressed herself to say that she was ready to marry the girl with petitioner No. 2 immediately after Diwali. This suggestion, however, was negated by the petitioner No. 1 who said that she would rather like to stay with the boy whom she has statedly married.

Notice was issued and it was accepted by Mr. A.D.S. Ghuman, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners were given liberty to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, if they felt threat to their life and liberty in any manner. In the order, the SSP, Pathankot was directed to take action in accordance with law. Thus instead of providing protection or obeying the order passed by the Court in letter and spirit, the police registered FIR against petitioner No. 2 and his three brothers and father. This fact when pointed out before the Court on 21.10.2011 certainly called for taking a serious notice and it was so taken by this Court.

On the adjourned date the petitioner No. 1 alone appeared and complained that instead of providing security rather the police has taken action against petitioner No. 2, who had been arrested for an offence u/s 307 IPC.

The petitioners would allege that the relatives of petitioner No. 1 alongwith some local police had come to the house of petitioner No. 2 and gave beating to the petitioner No. 2 as well as his brothers. Petitioner No. 2 and his brothers etc. had got their medico legal examination to show the injuries suffered by them. The police still did not act on their complaint and instead police registered a case against petitioner No. 2 and his father and brothers.

Petitioner No. 1 alone had come present in Court on 21.10.2011. ASI Ram Bhajan appeared on behalf of the respondent police officials. The ASI conveyed through the State counsel that petitioner No. 2 had been arrested for an offence u/s 307 IPC. The Court accordingly took notice of this highhandedness on the part of the police and observed that instead of obeying the direction issued by this Court to see and protect the life and liberty of the petitioners, the police had acted to take contrary action by registering the case against petitioner No. 2 and his family members. The Court formed a prima-facie view that police action was only to circumvent and byepass the order passed by this Court. The story projected by the police was not accepted as it was viewed that the person who had approached this Court to seek protection could not be expected to go and pick up fight with the family members of the girl. Considering the totality of the circumstances into view and noticing that the police officer apparently had violated the order passed by this Court, the directions were issued to SHO Sh. Vipin Kumar and SSP, Pathankot to show cause as to why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them.

Notices were served upon them through the State counsel. Direction was also issued for the release of petitioner No. 2 on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the petitioner No. 2 was directed to be produced. In the meantime, petitioner No. 2 was directed to move proper application for bail before this Court. Petitioner No. 2 accordingly approached this Court and has been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2011.

The SSP, Pathankot and said SHO came present before the Court pursuant to the notices issued to them on 21.10.2011. In the meantime, the petitioners had also filed additional pleadings for which the State was put to notice to file response. SHO of police station and SSP, Pathankot were directed to remain present.

On 17.11.2011, the State counsel was given time to file response on behalf of the SSP and the police officer concerned to show how and under what circumstances petitioner No. 2 was arrested. On his request, the case was again adjourned. The affidavit has been filed explaining the circumstances as well as for tendering unconditional apology in case it is felt that any order has been violated by the police officer concerned.

Copy of the FIR which has been registered against petitioner No. 2 has also been placed on record by the petitioners as Annexure P-7. I have perused the FIR. This FIR is recorded by a police Head Constable Sudesh Kumar who is posted at Women Cell D.P.O., Gurdaspur. The Head Constable states that he belongs to the same village and had gone to his home to change his uniform. It is too much of a co-incidence that Sudesh Kumar belongs to a same village and is a neighbour of petitioner No. 2. This Head Constable was admittedly on a VIP duty at Tarn Taran and as a matter of another co-incidence had come on visit to his house - for what - for changing his uniform on 19.10.2011. He states that after changing uniform and at about 10.30 P.M. he went to Dinanagar to drop his brother Naresh Kumar. At that time one Arjun Mohindra Tractor was seen coming from opposite side which was driven by Raman Kumar son of Babu Ram, Caste Saini, resident of Pakhochak alongwith his father Babu Ram son of Dula Ram who was armed with datar, Aman Kumar son of Babu Ram was also armed with datar and so was Pawan Kumar son of Babu Ram. They are resident of Pakhochak and had allegedly in connivance with each other came there and moved the tractor towards the complainant with an attempt to kill him. The complainant immediately applied the break and fell down. Then Babu Ram, Aman Kumar, Pawan Kumar all the three allegedly came down alongwith their weapons when Babu Ram raised lalkara and accosted by saying that catch hold of the enemy and teach him a lesson. Raman Kumar again moved the tractor with an intention to kill the complainant when the complainant stepped backward. It is further alleged that the tractor was then made to move over the motorcycle leading to damaging the motor cycle. On the basis of this allegation, the FIR u/s 307 IPC was registered against petitioner No. 2 including his other relatives for which he was taken into custody. The police has thus tried to make out this to be a case of genuine fight for which petitioner No. 2 was taken into custody. As per the petitioners, this case has been foisted upon him and his relatives just to circumvent the order passed by this Court.

It is strange to notice that the petitioner No. 2 and his relatives have allegedly acted against a Head Constable without any motive or cause. If their was one, it is not disclosed. Why they would do so would defy logic. It is beyond comprehension.

During the hearing, the State counsel had pointed out before this Court that the copy of the order passed by this Court was not available with the petitioners on 19.10.2011. To contest this the counsel for the petitioners has placed before me a copy of the order which they had obtained on 18.10.2011 itself. This certified copy of the order which is handed over in the Court is kept on record.

There is too much to say about the registration of this FIR. For what purpose and reason petitioner No. 2 and his family members had taken up a quarrel with police Head Constable is not really made out or understood. Apparently, it seems that police Head Constable who belongs to the same village has made such allegations just to explain the illegal action which the police official has taken in arresting petitioner No. 2 despite the order passed by this Court. The State counsel of course has submitted that this was a case of genuine fight which led to registration of a case against petitioner No. 2 and his family members. As per the State counsel the copy of the order passed by this Court was never brought to the notice of the police.

If the police has acted in this manner to violate the order passed by this Court then it is rather a serious matter and can not be allowed to go without taking serious notice. It will be rather a sad day for the justice when the police would act to circumvent or violate the order passed by this Court. If the police has taken this action to arrest petitioner No. 2 despite the order passed by this Court and being aware of that order, then it is not only a case of disobedience and violation of the order passed by this Court revealing contempt but may reveal commission of some offence to falsely implicate the petitioners No. 2 and others for which the police official may have to be held liable for criminal offences. If on the other hand, the FIR was registered correctly without being aware of the order passed by this Court, then the action may be justified. This issue has to be resolved. Truth must surface and must be ascertained. There are many tell tale signs in this case which will prima-facie raise a strong suspicion against the police. There are too many co-incidences to be believed. There is need to direct enquiry by a Judicial Officer so as to ascertain the truth.

District and Session Judge, Gurdaspur is directed to detail a suitable officer preferably the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hold an inquiry into this case who would submit his report in regard to the entire episode. The enquiry officer will find out if the allegations made against petitioner No. 2 are correct or were made out or were fabricated just to circumvent the order passed by this Court. The enquiry would also find out if the order passed by this Court was brought to the notice of police and still the police registered FIR. The officer so detailed to hold the enquiry would submit his report preferably within a period of 2 months from today.

A copy of this order be sent to District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for compliance of this direction.

Adjourned to 09.02.2012.

Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by the CJM, Gurdaspur. The relevant part of the enquiry report submitted to this Court reads thus:

Thus, from the testimony of all these witnesses, it has come to light that Aman Saini and Renu Bala did not present the protection order dated 18.10.2011 of Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court before SHO, Taragarh or SSP, Pathankot till the registration of case. Assuming for a moment that Aman Saini or Renu Bala had shown such orders to any of the police officials before the registration of case u/s 307 IPC, even then, it was the duty of the concerned Police Officials to register the case against Aman Saini and others, mainly because eit has been concluded that the allegations against Aman Saini and his family members are correct and the same are not fabricated. Rather, it appears that Aman Saini and Renu Bala are taking benefit of order dated 18.10.2011 of Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by alleging false story of occurrence in their house and further that H.C. Sudesh Kumar is uncle in near relation of Renu Bala.

Thus, it is concluded without any hesitation that case u/s 307, etc, IPC has rightly been registered against accused Aman Saini and such case is not fabricated against accused Aman Saini and such case is not fabricated one or just to circumvent the orders of Hon''ble High Court. It is also concluded that Aman Saini and his wife Renu Bala did not produce such order dated 18.10.2011 before the concerned Police Officials till registration of the case.

Today, counsel for the petitioners has stated that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn.

On his request, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. However, the said order is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to initiate any appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.