Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 435 (UTT)

BALJEET SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2009-08-19

B.C.KANDPAL, B.S.VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the complainant in Case Crime No. 117 of 2009 under Section 376 I.P.C. P.S. Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, has prayed for a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 for expediting the investigation within some stipulated time. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerged out from the petition are that the petitioner lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Bhagwanpur on 6.6.2009 under Section 376 I.P.C. against two accused person namely Brajesh son of Nanku and Nessa son of Katu, both residents of Village Lamgrant, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. It has been alleged by the complainant in the First Information Report lodged by him at Police Station Bhagwanpur that the aforesaid two accused persons committed rape upon his daughter Km. Ushmati when she was staying alone in her house. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that after lodging the First Information Report, he also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the first Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, and only thereafter the police lodged the report in Case Crime No. 117 of 2009 under Section 376 I.P.C. on 14.6.2009. It has also been stated by the petitioner that there were two eye-witnesses of the incident namely Islam son of Pharjand and Saddo wife of Salman whose affidavits were also produced by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee along with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the police has registered the case but no action has been taken by the police against the real culprits and further the police is not prepared to go ahead with the investigation of the case. It has also been stated that neither the statement of the prosecutrix nor the statement of any other eye-witness has been recorded by the police as yet. The petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that on 10.8.2009, the Circle Officer called him at Police Station Bhagwanpur and got his signatures on blank papers which is causing apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that these paper could be used against the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that on 10.8.2009, the Circle Officer called him at Police Station Bhagwanpur and got his signatures on blank papers which is causing apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that these paper could be used against the petitioner. Thus the petitioner has an apprehension in the mind that the police may not fairly investigate the matter, hence, he has filed this writ petition for issuing the direction to the police for expeditious investigation in the case and thereafter submission of the report. 4. Heard Sri Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, and perused the record. 5. The petitioner has filed the carbon copy of the First Information Report lodged by him at Police Station Bhagwanpur on 6.6.2009 as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ petition and this indicates that the report was registered by the police on 14.6.2009, i.e. after the delay of about eight days. It is no clear that why the police kept mum for these eight days in a case which itself is heinous in nature. When the case under Section 376 I.P.C. was lodged, then it was the duty of the police to take prompt action in the matter keeping in view the seriousness of the case but silence on the part of the police for eight days itself creates a doubt on the working of the police agency in the matter. In case if the averments made by the petitioner that the police has neither recorded the statement of the prosecutrix as yet nor recorded the statement of the witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence nor prepared site plan nor performed any other formality pertaining to the investigation of the case as yet, i.e., even after a lapse of period of more than two months, then this type of situation is reflecting the carelessness on the part of the police agency in the serious matters like rape cases. In this case the allegation has been made against the two accused persons for committing rape upon a girl, therefore, it is not a case of rape simpliciter, but a case of gang rape and there is no reason with the police kept silence in this type of heinous crime for such a long time. In this case the allegation has been made against the two accused persons for committing rape upon a girl, therefore, it is not a case of rape simpliciter, but a case of gang rape and there is no reason with the police kept silence in this type of heinous crime for such a long time. In case if the averments made in the writ petition are true then we are of the definite view that this type of inaction by the police should be depreciated and the Senior Superintendent of Police/respondent no. 2 should immediately look into the matter and probe the enquiry with regard to the inaction of the personnel of the concerned police station including the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer and in case, if any of the officers of the Police Station is found guilty for not taking the action promptly in the matter, he should be dealt with strictly by the superior officers. However, at this stage we are left with no option except to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to start inquiry without causing any unreasonable delay and submit the report after completion of the investigation as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing the copy of this order before the concerned authorities. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 7. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. 8. It is made clear that learned A.G.A. shall immediately inform the respondent nos. 2 and 3 with regard to the order passed by this Court today and shall thereafter also inform the Court after a period of two months with regard to the status of the investigation. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police, State of Uttarakhand, in order to show the glaring example of the inaction on the part of police agency in case of heinous crimes which are being reported to the police stations.