KRISHNA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions were filed by the petitioner-complainant under Sections 397 and 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973( "Cr. P.C.? in short) against the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 14 and 15 of 2009 filed by two accused-police officials, who have been separately impleaded as respondent no. 2 in these petitions, whereby the order dated 2 nd May,2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate herein summoning them as accused for the commission of the offence under Section 325/34 IPC was set aside.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner-complainant had lodged a report on 1 st December,1996 at Najafgarh police station against the then Station House Officer(SHO) of that police station Inspector Sat Pal Sharma, who is respondent no. 2 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 684 of 2010, Sub Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, who is respondent no. 2 in Crl. Revision Petition No. 683 of 2010, and other unnamed policemen, in respect of the incident which occurred on 29th November,1996 when these two police officials alongwith some other policemen had come to her house and severely beaten her husband and when she had tried to save her husband from the assault of the policemen she was also slapped and manhandled and the policemen had then taken her and her husband to the police station. At the police station she was asked to take off her clothes which she refused to do and then she was slapped and abused. In that incident the leg of her husband was broken because of the lathi blows given to him. Since the petitioner?s complaint was against the SHO and his subordinates no FIR was registered and that led to the filing of a criminal writ petition(being Crl.W.P.No.66/1997) by the petitioner herein in this Court. Only thereafter FIR No. 575/97 under Sections 325/509/323/34 IPC came to be registered on 3rd September, 1997 pursuant to the directions of this Court in the said writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner-complainant?s grievance is that though this Court had also directed in the writ petition that the investigation was to be carried out under the supervision of Additional Commissioner of Police but the police was not deterred by this Court finding the allegations made against the policemen to be prima facie good enough for registration of FIR and investigation into those allegations and that is evident from the fact that the investigation done was completely an eye-wash and after completing the paper formalities a closure/cancellation report was submitted in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th September, 2000 to the effect that no case was made out for charge sheeting any police man. The Magistrate was, however, not satisfied with the investigation done and so further investigation was ordered vide order dated 20th April, 2002. The investigation was done by the Crime Branch but once again the police submitted a report in Court on 16th December, 2006 that no case was made out against anyone and that the complaint of the complainant was motivated and fabricated lodged against the police officials to avenge the arrest of her son in a case relating to some incident which took place on 6th November, 1996. This time the learned Magistrate, however, realized that come what may the police is not going to prosecute the policemen and accordingly accepted the closure/cancellation report submitted by the police vide order dated 6th July,2007 instead of once again directing further investigation. However, simultaneously the learned Magistrate himself took cognizance also and called upon the petitionercomplainant to produce whatever evidence she had to substantiate her allegations against the police officials against whom she had lodged the complaint.