PREM HAZARA Vs. SATINDER SINGH GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against order dt. 22.12.83 of Additional C.MM. dismissing Complaint of petitioner which she had instituted against the respondents u/Ss. 452/342/397/506/04/ & 325/34 IPC. The order of dismissal has been made u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code').

(2.) Succinctly the facts germane to the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondents who are police officers, Satinder Singh Grewal-respondent I being Asstt Comm. of Police, L S. Sandhu-respondent 2 also heing Asstt Comm. of Police, Joginder Singh respondent 3, Ram Kishan-respondent 4, Madanjit Singh-respondent 5 being Sub Inspectors of police and Ram Mehar-respondent 6 being driver, all attached to Police Station Kamla Market at the relevant time are alleged to have visited the residential premises at 56, Japan Building, G.B. Road, of the petitioner on the night between 12/13th Sep. 1979 and they allegedly assaulted and gave beating to the complainant-petitioner as well as her husband-Din Mohammad. Further respondent 5 allegedly removed a gold chain worth about Rs. 16,000.00 from the person of Din Mohammad and when he protested against the same, respondent I silenced him at the point of pistol saying that it was made of brass and not gold. Thereafter, the accused led the petitioner and her husband to Police Station and gave beating to both of them on the way as well as at the Police Station due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. They were detained at the Police Station till 17.9.79 and on their release from the Police custody the petitioner approached Metropolitan Magistrate and requested for medical examination of both herself and her husband. They were accordingly medically examined in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, and the petitioner was kept as an indoor patient for medical treatment because a fracture had been detected. She lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police but finding that the local police was reluctant to take any action in the matter she instituted a complaint against respondents on 27.9.79 for their trial for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant-petitioner on 28.9.79 postponed the preliminary inquiry. Subsequently, he examined some more witnesses on 1.8.81 and 17.4.82 Thereafter vide order dated 12.5.82 he directed an inquiry to be held by the Deputy Comm. of Police (Crime) with the observation that as the police officers involved, inter alia, included an Asstt. Comm. of Police the inquiry be not held by a police officer below the rank of Assistant Comm. of Police. As would appear from the perusal of aforesaid order the learned Magistrate wanted to assess on receipt of report of inquiry whether the alleged acts were done by the police officers in the colour of their authority/in discharge of their duties as police officers. Accordingly an inquiry was held by Shri N.N. Tuli Asstt. Comm. of police, who submitted his report to the Magistrate in Dec., 1982. On a perusal of the said report, the learned Magistrate found that there was no sufficient evidence to proceed against any of the accused for the offence complained of. Hence, he dismissed the complaint. It may be pertinent to notice here that the learned Magistrate, inter alia, took note of the fact that neither the petitioner nor her husband-Din Mohammad came forward to support their allegations before the Inquiry Officer. He further noticed that the petitioner was already facing trial in a number of cases under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act as well as Arms Act as she was allegedly having 5/7 girls for singing and dancing and was running a brothel at her residence,