Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 656 (PNJ)

Meenakshi Bhalla v. State of Punjab

2012-05-02

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Concisely, the essential facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, the marriage of petitioner- Meenakshi Bhalla was solemnized with Bhupinder Singh son of Mohan Singh (respondent No.2) on 07.01.2002, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After solemnization of the marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife and a daughter, namely, Samaira was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner claimed that as her husband was residing in Italy, therefore, her in-laws used to maltreat her in the matrimonial home in village Saroya, District Nawanshahr. On the night intervening 05/06.06.2009, she was attacked by two unknown persons, at the instance of her father-in-law(respondent No.2), who trespassed into her house at 1.30 AM(night). She reported the matter to the police, whereby a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.55 dated 9.6.2009(Annexure P-1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, by the police of Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar. 2. As, luck would have been, the husband of the petitioner, who was residing in Italy, died on 01.09.2009 in his youth. She wanted to go to Italy to perform his last rites. However, since, the Passport and original P.R. documents were in the custody of her in-laws family and they had refused to return the same, so, the petitioner moved an application, in question, dated 13.09.2009(Annexure P- 2) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar, requesting therein that they be directed to return the Passport and P.R. documents and her life and liberty and life of her minor daughter, be protected. It was further claimed that when the petitioner had gone to the Central Bank of India, then on opening of Locker No.142, operated by her late husband, she found her Passport, but the P.R.documents were not there. Subsequently, she was able to get P.R. documents only after registering an FIR in Italy. Having completed all the documents, she went Italy to perform the last rites of her husband. Subsequently, she was able to get P.R. documents only after registering an FIR in Italy. Having completed all the documents, she went Italy to perform the last rites of her husband. It was alleged that since, the police did not take any action, so, she approached and the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, took cognizance on her complaint and sought status report, by way of orders dated 25.11.2009 and 28.12.2009 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), respectively. 3. During the course of inquiry, she fairly submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police that, she had obtained the duplicate P.R.documents from Italy and subsequently found her Passport from the said Locker. Thereafter, believing her statement to be true, the SSP, Headquarter, concluded that there was no need to take any action on her application (Annexure P-2) in any manner. But strange enough, her father-in-law, respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”), moved another application dated 14.05.2010(Annexure P-6), on the basis of which, SHO, Police Station, Nurpur Bedi, illegally proposed to prosecute her (petitioner) under Section 182 IPC and accordingly, prepared the impugned Calender (Annexure P-8). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned Calender (Annexure P-8), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, on the grounds that no offence whatsoever under Section 182 IPC is made out, as the information supplied by her through the medium of application(Annexure P-2), was found to be correct and truthful. The police did not find the information as false at any point of time. No prosecution can be launched under Section 182 IPC, without compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. It was claimed that since, the application (Annexure P-2) was moved to the SSP, so, the SHO was not competent to prepare the impugned Calender on the subsequent application(Annexure P-6) of respondent No.2. The impugned prosecution was stated to have been instituted by her father-in-law(respondent No.2) as a counter-blast to the criminal case registered against the accused. In all, according to the petitioner that, since the impugned Calender (Annexure P-8) was illegally prepared by the police at the instance of her father-in-law(respondent No.2), so, it is liable to be quashed in this respect. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned Calender (Annexure P-8) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove. 5. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned Calender (Annexure P-8) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinabove. 5. The complainant respondent No.2 did not appear to contest the prayer of the petitioner, despite service. Although, the State of Punjab did not file the reply, but acknowledged the factual matrix. However, the respondent-State, in a very casual manner, orally refuted the prayer of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the main petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case, is as to whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Section 182 IPC or not? 8. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative in this respect. 9. As is clear Section 182 IPC postulates that, whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant, to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished under this Section. 10. A meaningful reading of this provision would reveal that, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution, inter alia, to indicate that; (i) the petitioner gave any such information, (ii) which she knows or believes to be false, (iii) which was actually found to be false and (iv) intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that she will thereby cause, such public servant, to act accordingly to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person, which are totally lacking in the instant case. 11. 11. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner gave the application/indicated information(Annexure P-2) dated 13.09.2009 with the prayer that “hence, it is requested to your goodself that the life of me and my daughter be protected and my Passport and P.R.documents be got returned to me from my inlaws family, so that by going Italy, I can perform the rites and customs for the peace of departed soul of my husband”. It is not a matter of dispute that, as regards, the other incidents of night intervening 05/06.06.2009 and other allegations are concerned, a separate criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.55 dated 09.06.2009(Annexure P-1) by the police of Police Station Nurpur Bedi. The Punjab State Human Rights Commission, took the cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner and sought the status report in the said FIR, by means of orders dated 25.11.2009 and 28.12.2009(Annexures P-4 and P-5), respectively. 12. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, in the wake of application/information(Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, Charanjit Kumar, SP Headquarter, Rupnagar, conducted the inquiry & investigation and submitted his conclusion/final report, which in substance is as under:- “From my enquiry and on the perusal of the statements of the witnesses and other documents, it has been found that the applicant Meenakshi had got solemnized a love marriage with Bhupinder Singh son of Mohan Singh, resident of Nurpur Bedi, due to which the parents of both of them were not happy with their inter-caste marriage. Bhupinder Singh, the husband of applicant was living abroad in Italy and the applicant along with her daughter was living separately at Nurpur Bedi by taking separate house. Her husband died on 1.9.2009 in Italy. In the application, the allegation which the applicant has levelled against her in-laws family for extending killing threats to her, regarding this the Station House Officer, Nurpur Bedi has been directed through another notice that if need be then after conducting enquiry, the Roku(restraining) proceedings be taken. On 6th June 2009, the applicant has also levelled the allegations of attack on her house, regarding which applicant has already got registered a case FIR No.55 dated 9.6.09 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, P.S. Nurpur Bedi. On 6th June 2009, the applicant has also levelled the allegations of attack on her house, regarding which applicant has already got registered a case FIR No.55 dated 9.6.09 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, P.S. Nurpur Bedi. The applicant was directed to coordinate with the Station House Officer and to cooperate with the Police to trace the accused and the Station House Officer has been directed that after making coordination with the applicant, the accused be traced and the case be disposed off. As far as the allegation levelled by the applicant to get her Passport and P.R documents returned from her in-laws family, is concerned, in that regard applicant has mentioned in her statement that while operating the bank lockers of her husband which are in Central Bank, Nawanshahr she had got the Passport and she has also obtained her duplicate P.R. documents from Italy. The applicant failed to produce any witness or evidence of keeping her P.R.documents and Passport with her in-laws family. There is no need to take any action on this application. Hence, the application is required to be filed in the office. Report submitted. Sd/- Charanjit Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Local, Rupnagar.” 13. Meaning thereby, the information given by the petitioner by virtue of application(Annexure P-2) was found to be correct and accurate by the SP, Headquarter. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the petitioner gave the false information to such public servant, warranting her prosecution under Section 182 IPC. Her father-in-law filed a false application(Annexure P-6) maliciously and vexatiously, in order to take revenge from the petitioner. In this manner, neither the complainant-respondent No.2(father-in-law of the petitioner) was competent to move any such application(Annexure P-6), nor the SHO was legally empowered to prepare the Calender (Annexure P-8) on his complaint. 14. Therefore, the entire exercise was initiated by the complainantrespondent No.2(father-in-law of the petitioner), in order to take revenge and wreak vengeance from her. The SHO has acted under some kind of undisclosed undue pressure put by the complainant and illegally prepared the impugned false Calender (Annexure P-8) under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner, which deserves to be set aside. If such false criminal prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the petitioner in the obtaining circumstances of the case, which is not legally permissible. 15. If such false criminal prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the case of the petitioner in the obtaining circumstances of the case, which is not legally permissible. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned Calender (Annexure P-8) under Section 182 IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and the petitioner is accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal prosecution in this relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------