Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 672 (DEL)

SHAKUNTLA v. UNION OF INDIA

1994-10-01

ARUN B.SAHARYA, C.M.NAYAR

body1994
Arun B. Saharya ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that respondents 1,2 and 3, namely, Union of India, Delhi Administration and the Commissioner of Police be directed to register a case against respondents 4 to 9 and their associates under Sections 452,380, 323,354, 147, 148, 149 and 34 Indian Penal Code and that investigation. be directed to be carried out by the Crime Branch or CBI or IB. The prayerrs based upon allegations made in the petition in respect of incidents which are said to have taken place on 30th, 31st of July, 7th of October and 7th of November 1993 involving Gopal, Pushkar and Sanjay, all sons of Babu Ram, and Promod and Dalip, both sons of Devraj and one Amar Singh respondents 4 to 9 respectively. Respondents 4 to 6 live in the same house as the petitioner. Respondents 7 to 9 live nearby. Respondents 10 to 13 are officers of the local police station, who are alleged to be colluding with respondents 4 to 9. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she, her old mother and brothers reside in a portion on the second floor of House No. 2088, Makim Pura, Ghanta Ghar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. There was no door to separate their premises from the rest of the house. So, they had no privacy. On 30th of July 1993, when the petitioner wanted to instal a door, respondents 4, -5 and 6, who are bad characters and are involved in a number of criminal cases, objected. They, along with their accomplices respondents 7 and 8, insisted upon removing the door. The petitioner s mother reported the matter to the police station. Next day, on 31st of July 1993 at about 7. 05 p. m. , respondents 4 to 6, along with their accomplices, assaulted the petitioner and her mother and misbehaved with the petitioner. The petitioner shouted for help. Some 5 or 6 persons rushed upstairs and saved them. When they went to the police station, instead of helping them out, the police officers detained the petitioner and her mother for the whole night at the police station. In their absence, their telephone, fridge, fan and other articles were broken and valuables were taken away by the miscreants. Some 5 or 6 persons rushed upstairs and saved them. When they went to the police station, instead of helping them out, the police officers detained the petitioner and her mother for the whole night at the police station. In their absence, their telephone, fridge, fan and other articles were broken and valuables were taken away by the miscreants. The petitioner made a complaint dated 2nd of August 1993 about all this to the Lt. Governor and forwarded copies to the Commissioner of Police and to the Police Station, Subzi Mandi. A copy of the complaint is Annexure A. Another complaint dated 20th of September 1993, in respect of the same incident that took place on 31st of July 1993, was made to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Civil Lines, Delhi, with copies, forwarded to D. C. P. (Vigilance), Police Headquarters and the Commissioner of Police, a copy of which is Annexure C. ( 3 ) FURTHER, it is alleged that on 7th of October 1993, Pramod and Dalip respondents 7 and 8 respectively hurled abuses at the petitioner. Again, on 8th of October 1993, Gopal respondent No. 4 and Pramod respondent No. 7 abused the petitioner in filthy language (the actual words need not be reproduced here) and that Pushkar respondent No. 5, Sanjay respondent No. 6, Dalip respondent No. 8 and Amar Singh respondent No. 9 also joined them in doing so. They even tried to manhandle the petitioner. When she raised hue and cry, the neighbours collected there and rescued her. Dalip threatened to kill the petitioner and her mother. Since the police did not take any action, the petitioner made a complaint dated 13th of October 1993 to the Commissioner of Police, a copy of which is Annexure D (colly. ). ( 4 ) ANOTHER incident took place at about 7 p. m. on 7th of November 1993. That day, it is alleged, Pushkar respondent No. 5 again abused the petitioner. She called the police on phone for assistance. The police van came and took away her brother Mahesh to the police station. He was falsely implicated in a case him under Sections 93 and 97 of the Delhi Police Act; Later, Mahesh was released on bail by the Court. She called the police on phone for assistance. The police van came and took away her brother Mahesh to the police station. He was falsely implicated in a case him under Sections 93 and 97 of the Delhi Police Act; Later, Mahesh was released on bail by the Court. ( 5 ) ON behalf of respondents 1,2,3 and 10 to 13, Gurnam Singh, S. H. O. , P. S. Subzi Mandi has filed counter-affidavit dated 3rd of May 1994. The various allegations made in the petition have been denied. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6 are cousin brothers of the petitioner. They are all residing along with other members of their family as tenants in the said house. There are two adjoining rooms on the second floor of the house. The first room is in possession of the petitioner and the members of her family. The second room is. in the possession of respondents 4 to 6. Access to the second room is through the first room. There was no door in the common wall of the said two rooms. On 31 st of July 1993, a dispute arose between the petitioner s group and the group of respondents 4 to 6 and a quarrel incident took place. At about 7. 45 p. m. , information was received on the wireless set about the incident. It was entered into daily diary. S. I. Kishan Chand was deputed to look into the matter. After preliminary enquiry, FIR No. 201/93 was registered against the brothers of the petitioner, namely, Jai Kishan, Mahesh, Vijay Kumar and Bharaj,. ( 6 ) IT is also averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had lodged false complaints dated 2nd of August 199-3 and 20th of September 1993 and has instituted the present petition in order to mislead the Court and raise a defence for her brothers. It is denied that the petitioner and her mother came to the police station and that they were made to sit there for the whole night on 31 st of July 1993. It has been explained that the complaints dated 2nd ofaugust 1993 and 20th of September 1993, both relating to the 31st of July 1993 incident, were thoroughly examined and investigation revealed no case of theft. It has been explained that the complaints dated 2nd ofaugust 1993 and 20th of September 1993, both relating to the 31st of July 1993 incident, were thoroughly examined and investigation revealed no case of theft. It is also stated that Gopal respondent No. 4, Pushkar respondent No. 5 and Sanjay respondent No. 6 suffered injuries on 31st of July 1993. On the basis of the available evidence, FIR No. 201/93 under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the four brothers pf the petitioner and that case is pending trial. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the incident on 7th of October 1993, it is stated that a complaint was received. The matter was investigated. In view of allegedly filthy language used by Gopal respondent No. 4, a kalendra under Section 91/93/97 of Delhi Police Act was drawn up. Gopal was arrested and produced in Court in connection with that case. The representation dated 10th of October 1993 (Annexure D) relates to the very same incident. ( 8 ) LASTLY, with regard to the incident on 7th of November 1993, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that after investigation into the matter, kalendra under Section 93/97 of Delhi Police Act was lodged against Mahesh Chand and Pushkar. The allegation of collusion between the police officers respondents 10 to 13 and respondents 4 to 9 has been denied. ( 9 ) THE counter-affidavit also discloses involvement of members of family of the petitioner in the following five other cases: - " (I) FIR No. 256/92 u/s 406 Indian Penal Code- against the mother and brother of the petitioner namely Ram Pyari and Vijay are the accused. (2) FIR No. 271/94 u/s 452/308/323/34 Indian Penal Code involving Jai Kishan brother of the petitioner. (3) FIR No. 266/92 u/s 363 Indian Penal Code against Mahesh brother of the petitioner. (4) FIR No. 48/88 u/s 325/34 Indian Penal Code involving three brothers of the petitioner, namely, Jai Kishan, Vijay and Mahesh. (5) FIR No. 134/84 u/s 324 Indian Penal Code against Jai Kishan brother of the petitioner. " ( 10 ) ON the basis of these cases, it is asserted that the members of petitioner s family also have a record of involvement in criminal cases. (5) FIR No. 134/84 u/s 324 Indian Penal Code against Jai Kishan brother of the petitioner. " ( 10 ) ON the basis of these cases, it is asserted that the members of petitioner s family also have a record of involvement in criminal cases. ( 11 ) FROM the above-mentioned facts, it appears that members of both the groups, namely, the petitioner and her family consisting other mother and brothers as well as the group represented by her cousins respondents 4, 5 and 6 have a record of involvement in criminal cases. A dispute arose between the two groups on installation of a door to separate the two rooms on the second floor of the said house on the 30th of July 1 993, which resulted in a violent clash between the two groups on 31st of July 1993. In respect of this episode, FIR No. 201/93 under Section 307/34 was registered against four brothers of the petitioner. ( 12 ) COUNSEL for the parties were specifically asked as to whether the brothers of the petitioner, who were named as accused persons in FIR No. 201 /93, were arrested on the day of the incident on 31st of July 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing respondents 4 to 8 stated that the four brothers of the petitioner surrendered themselves to Police Station Kotwali 8 or 10 days after the incident. Learned counsel for the State, however, was not in a position to give the exact date for want of availability of records relating to case FIR No. 201/93. Thus, prima facie, it appears that Gopal, Pushkar and Sanjay, respondents 4, 5 and 6 respectively, suffered injuries on 31st of July 1993 and the brothers of the petitioner, who were the accused persons, namely, Kishan, Mahesh, Vijay Kumar and Bharat ran away and surrendered only after 8 or 10 days. This important piece of information had been suppressed by the petitioner. ( 13 ) ON overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the State that the information regarding the incident that took place on 31st of July 1993 revealed commission of cognizable offences in respect of which FIR was registered, investigation was carried out, and the case is pending trial. The version set up by the petitioner in respect of what really happened on the 30th and 31 st of July 1993 may well constitute defence of the four brothers of the petitioner in the case pending trial. So far as the incidents of 7th of October 1993 and 7th of November 1993 are concerned, the nature of information stated in the complaints as well as in the petition do not make out any cognizable offence. The police authorities appear to be justified in recording and putting up kalendras in respect of these two incidents. ( 14 ) IT may be clarified that the observations made herein shall have no bearing upon the merits of any of the cases, namely, FIR No. 201/93 and the above-mentioned kalendras. ( 15 ) NO ground is made out for interference in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 16 ) THE petition is, therefore, dismissed.