Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 558 (PNJ)

Mayawati v. Hukam Chand Attreja

2001-05-18

K.S.KUMARAN

body2001
JudgmentJudgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Petitioner Mayawati lodged a written complaint on 2.11.1995 at Police Station City, Hissar alleging that she, a widow, belonging to a Scheduled Caste and working as a Peon under the respondent, was called to the office for duty on 19.11.1995 on the ground that there was some interview. According to her, she had gone to the office on that day at about 3 p.m. and she was called inside his office by the respondent-Hukam Chand Attreja, who was then posted as Superintendent of Post Offices, Hissar Division. She also claimed that the respondent misbehaved with her (did Behuda Harkat) and she came out of the office, but after five minutes, she was again called, and the respondent asked her to go to his residence with the Driver Rajinder for washing clothes. She further claimed that she went to the residence of the respondent, where the respondent reached after 20 minutes, and asked her to clean his kitchen. According to the petitioner, after she had entered the kitchen, the respondent also come to the kitchen, caught hold of her from behind, and started molesting her (doing Harkat). The petitioner also alleged that after extricating herself, when she was opening the door, the respondent threatened her calling as Saali Dhendhni, that if she dared to complain to anybody, he would kill her. The petitioner also claimed that the respondent had insulted her for being the member of the Scheduled Caste. 2. Though the D.D.R. entry was made on 23.11.1995 the F.I.R. was registered on 24.11.1995 under Section 354 I.P.C. After investigation, Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also added. On the application by the respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar, on 21.12.1995, the case was re-investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recorded the statements of Rajinder and Sham Lal Bhatia, and examined the prosecutrix. He found the case to be false and thereafter a report for cancellation was sent. On notice, petitioner-Mayawati filed a protest petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, after perusing the records and hearing the counsel for both the sides, held that the cancellation report is based on sound reasons and accepted it. Therefore, he discharged the respondent. 3. He found the case to be false and thereafter a report for cancellation was sent. On notice, petitioner-Mayawati filed a protest petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, after perusing the records and hearing the counsel for both the sides, held that the cancellation report is based on sound reasons and accepted it. Therefore, he discharged the respondent. 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.8.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, the petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision petition. 4. I have heard the counsel for the both the sides and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the complaint, it has been specifically stated that on 19.11.1995, the petitioner was called to come to the office on the ground that there was going to be an interview and accordingly, the petitioner had attended the office. He also contends that respondent, who is her superior, called her into his office and misbehaved with her, whereupon she came out of his office. He further contends that after 5 minutes, the petitioner was again called by the respondent-1 and was asked to go to his residence along with the Driver by name Rajinder, for the purpose of washing the clothes. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that respondent-1, who reached the house about 20 minutes later, asked the petitioner to clean the kitchen and when she went into the kitchen, respondent-1 also followed her, took her into grip and started outraging her modesty. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner extricated herself and came out, she was also threatened by respondent-1 that he would kill her and also called her by her caste name. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that these allegations have been made by the petitioner, who is not only a widow, but also a poor lady against her own superior. He contends that the learned Special Judge ought not to have accepted the cancellation report by critically analysing the evidence collected, but should have left the evidence to be examined at the time of the trial. He contends that the learned Special Judge ought not to have accepted the cancellation report by critically analysing the evidence collected, but should have left the evidence to be examined at the time of the trial. He also points out the fact that in these circumstances, when a superior officer had attempted to outrage the modesty of his subordinate who is also a widow, neither the delay in lodging the complaint, can be used against her since in such circumstances, women normally are hesitant to give such complaints nor should the Court look for corroboration from any other witness. He contends that the statement of the petitioner herself should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of rejecting the cancellation report. 6. But the learned counsel for the respondent-1, on the other hand, contends that this is not merely a case of delay in lodging the complaint, but also a case where the conduct of the petitioner herself shows that the case put forward by her is not true. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent allegedly called the petitioner into his office and behaved with her in an indecent manner, and the petitioner is stated to have come out of his office, but still even according to the petitioner, respondent-1 once again called her in his office and told her to go to his house and wash some clothes. The learned counsel for respondent-1 rightly points out that it is wholly improbable that the petitioner would have either entered the office of the 1st respondent after the alleged first incident, or would have even agreed to come to his house for cleaning the clothes. The learned counsel for respondent-1 also points out that after the petitioner had gone to the house of respondent-1, the respondent-1 is alleged to have reached the house, asked her to clean the kitchen, and when she went into the kitchen the 1st respondent is alleged to have outraged her modesty, threatened her and also to have called her by her caste name, since the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent further points out that if really such an incident had taken place at the residence of the respondent-1 also, the petitioner would not have kept quiet without lodging a report immediately. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent further points out that if really such an incident had taken place at the residence of the respondent-1 also, the petitioner would not have kept quiet without lodging a report immediately. He points out that even if she had not reported to the police, she would not have failed to inform the other officials of the Post Office. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-1, there is also the Union of the staff of Postal Department and the complaint itself has been falsely made at the instance of the former President of the Union, who had committed some misappropriation from whom the money was also recovered. I do not want to go into that aspect, but I am referring to it only to show that the petitioner would not have failed to inform about these incident on 19.11.1995 itself or atleast on the next day. This conduct of the petitioner in not informing about these alleged incidents certainly lends support to the contentions of respondent-1. 7. Further, the learned counsel for respondent-1 also contends that on the next day i.e. 20.11.1995, the petitioner had gone to the residence of respondent-1 and had taken the key of the office which again cannot be the conduct of a person who had allegedly been molested by respondent-1. Further, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also points out that the petitioner went to the office on 20th, 21st and 22nd of November, 1995, but had not made any complaint at all about the alleged incidents. On the application by the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded the statement of Driver-Rajinder and also Sham Lal Bhatia, who had not supported the case put forward by the petitioner. As pointed out already, even taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner-complainant herself, we find that her conduct is not in consonance with that of a person who had been allegedly molested by respondent-1. As pointed out already, even taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner-complainant herself, we find that her conduct is not in consonance with that of a person who had been allegedly molested by respondent-1. No doubt, the delay in such cases is not the only ground on which the case of the complainant could be rejected, but the fact that she had not given any complaint to the police immediately, that she had not reported the matter to anybody else, her alleged statement that she had gone to the house of respondent-1 also even after the alleged misbehaviour by respondent-1 at the office, the fact that she had gone to the house of respondent-1 on the next day and taken the keys of the office, since she is a Peon in the office of the respondent-1, all go to support the case of respondent-1 and go against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had attended the office on 3 subsequent days after the alleged incident without raising any hue and cry about the alleged incident. 8. Therefore, if we take into consideration all these circumstances, it is clear that this is a case where the Court will not act upon the allegations made by the petitioner. I am of the view that the cancellation report has been sent by the Investigation Agency after taking into consideration the valid reasons, and the Special Court has also accepted the same after taking into consideration all these factors, I find no ground to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.