MEENU SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a war of wits between husband and wife, child is made a pawn. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and respondent No.4 is her husband. Relations between them have soured; may be beyond repairs. Respondent No.4 is accusing wife of illicit relations with one Ajay Singh who is Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. Respondent No.4 has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner No.1, inter alia, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery and illicit relationship between petitioner No.1 and SI Ajay Singh amounting to cruelty. Parties have two children; one is named Aakriti who is a daughter aged 13 years and is arrayed as petitioner No.2 in this petition. Another child is son aged 9 years. Both the children are with father. Petitioner No.1 has filed petition for custody of these children which is also pending adjudication.

(2.) However, we are not concerned, in this petition, with any matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4. The acrimonious relationship between husband and wife has taken curious turn which has led to present proceedings. Respondent No.4 made complaint to the employer of SI Ajay Singh alleging his illicit relationship with petitioner No.1. It has resulted into initiation of departmental enquiry against SI Ajay Singh. This enquiry is in progress. It is governed by the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Prosecution and defence witnesses have already been examined. Rule 16-VIIIth of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 permits the Inquiry Officer to summon court witness. The Inquiry Officer, who is of the rank of the ACP, wants to clarify certain facts which have not been covered so far during the departmental enquiry proceedings and therefore he intends to examine three witnesses as court witnesses. For this he addressed letter dated 16th December, 2002 informing SI Ajay Singh about three court witnesses and directing him to attend the office at 2PM on 20th December, 2002 (which enquiry was adjourned to 6th February, 2003), to join the departmental enquiry so that the court witnesses may be examined in his presence. We are concerned with court witness No.1, who is none else but Kumari Aakriti (petitioner No.2) daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4. It is stated in the notice dated 16th December, 2002 `she will prove the association of SI Ajay Singh with her mother'. It is this action of the Inquiry Officer/respondent no.3 which is challenged by petitioner No.1 as she does not want her daughter to be examined in the said enquiry. She has filed this writ petition for self as the petitioner No.1 and on behalf of petitioner No.2 as her mother and natural guardian.

(3.) When this petition came up for hearing on 15th February, 2003 while issuing notice in the petition for 31st March, 2003, in CM No.1545/2003, which is an application for stay, following order was passed: