Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1696 (HP)

Sandhya Bansal v. State of H. P.

2014-11-20

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral): 1. By medium of this petition preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 77 of 2013, registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station, Parwanoo, under sections 353, 332, 34 IPC and has further sought transfer of investigation of case FIR No. 20 of 2013 registered with Police Station CID on 11.9.2013 to the Central Bureau Investigation. The petitioner claims that she and her family members including her husband and her two children as well as two other children were meted out with brutal treatment by the police personnels on the mid night of September 4th and 5th 2013 near Chakki Mor, Police Station, Parwanoo. It is further alleged that they were kept in illegal confinement in Police Station, Parwanoo lock up for two nights and one day (more than 36 hours). The precise case of the petitioner is that she alongwith her husband was going towards Shimla in their own car and had some altercation with some truck driver and for which purposes he went to lodge a complaint with the two young policemen standing at the Sales Tax Barrier at Chakki Mor. Those police personnels instead of discharging their statutory function, asked the son of the petitioner who was driving the car to park the same by the side of the road. It is thereafter alleged that the police officials started making uncalled for inquiries and used most filthy and derogatory language and then without any provocation gave forceful slap on the face of the petitioner, due to which blood oozed out from her mouth. The petitioner's son objected to this unruly behaviour, but it had no impact. Certain other allegations have been set out in the petition and it is alleged that since the accused happened to be the policemen, therefore, they are not cooperating and have falsely registered an FIR No. 77 of 2013 against her, while on the other hand, the petitioner with great difficulty, could lodge FIR No. 20 of 2013 against the police personnels. 2. It is contended that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR shows that no cognizable offence stands disclosed and the facts narrated therein do not show in which manner the petitioner and other family members deterred the complainant from discharging his duty. 2. It is contended that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR shows that no cognizable offence stands disclosed and the facts narrated therein do not show in which manner the petitioner and other family members deterred the complainant from discharging his duty. It is further alleged that it cannot be believed that a woman would dare to assault a police functionary and it is only to save (his/their skin) that this FIR has been registered, because the medical examination conducted upon petitioner and other family members would reveal the brutal manner in which they have been assaulted. The FIR has been lodged out of vindictiveness and its contents are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can reach to a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the petitioner and her family members. 3. The Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh filed their reply, wherein the allegations leveled by the petitioner have been denied in the following manner:- ?1. That the contents of this para are wrong hence denied. It is submitted that on dated 5.9.2013 constable Dalip Singh No. 377 6th IRBN Kolar District Sirmour was deputed along with Constable Ravinder Singh No. 359 at Chakki More Barrier and was present on duty. Constable Dalip Singh No. 377, 6th IRBN Kolar went to clear the jam near about 100 meters from excise barrier towards Parwanoo. A car arrived from Parwanoo side, the occupant of the car told Constable Dalip Singh that a Truck driver had misbehaved and when he enquired the No. of truck which they did not disclose and drove up words. The car come to him, thereafter when he was clearing the jam and one of the occupant of the car told him that he had taken the bride and allow the truck to flee. In the mean a women alighted from the car and started arraying with him. He told the lady to keep distance what she resorted to quarrel with him and told him to disclose his name and that she would get him dismissed being a daughter of SP. In the meanwhile four occupant of the car also came out and started scuffling with him and the women gave him a blower his mouth and nose which hurt him. In the meanwhile four occupant of the car also came out and started scuffling with him and the women gave him a blower his mouth and nose which hurt him. He wanted to run that but these people caught him and hearing the noise constable Ravinder Singh come to the spot and he and truck driver who had parked their truck rescued him from them. Some local were also there who's names are Amit Sharma, Devidayal when the said women and her five associates were giving beating to him truck driver scuffle with them while rescuing him. Later on he came to know the name of the women who gave beating to him is Sandhya where as the name of the men were Tushan, Satish, Manoj, Prashant Bansal. A boy escaped after giving beating. During scuffle the two button of the shirt of constable Dalip Singh were broken and regarding this constable Dalip Singh lodge a FIR at PS Parwanoo bearing registration No. 77/2013 U/S 353, 332, 34 IPC. These person gave beating to the Constable Dalip Singh and cause obstruction in the discharge of his official duties. Investigation of this case was carried by Sh. Sushil Kumar, SDPO Parwanoo. During the course of investigation statements of witnesses have been recorded. Who stated in their statement that accused persons were arguing with Constable Dalip Singh and the woman who was sitting in the car stated that she was the daughter of the SP and told him disclose his name and she would get him dismissed and also gave beating to constable Dalip Singh I/O also during the investigation taken in to possession the uniform and broken two buttons of constable Dalip Singh and also taken in to possession by seizure memo car bearing No. CH-01AA-4517 along with documents alongwith key. Thereafter the case was transferred to CID by the order of Director General of Police HP Shimla vide their office order Endst No. CB-3-20 (TPR of Case)/2013-13000-1 dated 12-9-2014.? 4. To the similar effect is the reply filed by the Additional Director General of Police (CID), who has been arrayed as respondent No.3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rupinder Singh and Ms. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rupinder Singh and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate Generals, for respondents No.1 to 3 and Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 13 have raised a preliminary objection regarding the very maintainability of the petition on the ground that the only relief sought by the petitioner is for quashing the FIR, whereas the police after completion of investigation has forwarded the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate and according to him this court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition at this stage. 6. Now at this stage when the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under judicial scrutiny, can this court undertake quashing proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction? The answer to this is in the negative, as would be clear from the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another etc. etc. vs. Shri P.P.Sharma and another etc. etc. AIR 1991 SC 1260 :- ?33. ………. We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the investigating officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. We could have set aside the High Court judgment on this ground alone but elaborate argument having been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties we thought it proper to deal with all the aspects of the case.? 7. In so far as the allegations regarding the tainted investigation are concerned, I need not delve on the same lest it prejudices the cases of either of the parties. 7. In so far as the allegations regarding the tainted investigation are concerned, I need not delve on the same lest it prejudices the cases of either of the parties. Since I have already held that at this stage when the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, this court will not undertake quashing proceedings by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 8. Now so far as the claim of the petitioner for transferring FIR No. 20 of 2013 to CBI is concerned, it has to be remembered that power of transfer of such investigation has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind or where the investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having a fair, honest and complete investigation and particularly when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies, but where the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts would not re-open the investigation and it has to be left open to the court where the charge sheet has been filed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Under no circumstances, should the court make any expression of its opinion on merits relating to any accusation against an individual. 9. The case in hand is already with the specialized wing of State Investigation Agency i.e. CID and there is no material placed before this court whereby it can be gathered that investigation in this FIR is not being conducted in a fair and honest manner. Moreover, the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. As warned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the extra ordinary powers to transfer the investigation from one Investigating Agency to the other Investigating Agency must be exercised sparingly and cautiously and in exceptional situation. No such exceptional circumstances, have been brought out in this case. 10. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As warned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the extra ordinary powers to transfer the investigation from one Investigating Agency to the other Investigating Agency must be exercised sparingly and cautiously and in exceptional situation. No such exceptional circumstances, have been brought out in this case. 10. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, before parting it may be clarified that this order will not debar the petitioner from approaching the Magistrate for the redressal of her grievances, which needless to say shall be redressed strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.