KAVITA DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") concerns itself with the non-registration of the F.I.R. for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint dated 22.2.1998 and the transfer of the investigation of the case to any other authority except the police officers of Police Station Naraina, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts emerging from the petition are that the petitioner is the aunt of one Meenakshi and were staying together in the Jhuggi of the petitioner situated opposite B-247, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi; that on 22.2.1998 at 3.30 a.m. the petitioner heard her husband scolding somebody outside the jhuggi. She got up and came out of the jhuggi and found her husband scolding their niece Meenakshi outside the jhuggi; that on asking, the petitioner was told by her husband that Meenakshi was with Gaurav son of Kuldeep Singh in the adjacent jhuggi. Thereupon the petitioner asked Meenakshi as to what was she doing with Gaurav in the jhuggi. Meenakshi stated that Gaurav came at about 1.30 a.m. after threatening and intimidating her, forced her and took her to the other jhuggi and committed rape on her and both were scared because of the sound of opening of the door of the jhuggi. Meenakshi also stated that if she had not obeyed the dictates of Gaurav then Gaurav would have defamed her in the whole village. Meenakshi told that it was before three months in the month of November, 1997 Gaurav had raped her consecutively for three times i.e. on 21st, 22nd and 23rd November and as a result of which in the month of January 1998 she felt nausea and started vomiting and her regular mensuration course got abruptly stopped and she found herself to be pregnant; that she talked about her pregnancy to Gaurav but he avoided it and did not pay any attention instead he started accusing her. Thereafter Meenakshi met mother of Gaurav i.e. wife of Kuldeep Singh and other family members; that Meenakshi was called by Chandu and Dillu. Dillu gave something in a tumbler to drink and after consuming, she fainted and when she regained senses, she found her private part being cleaned to remove the blood; that the pregnancy was terminated/aborted; that thereafter Gaurav would frequently force Meenakshi and rape her under the threat that he would expose her in the village and tell everyone about the abortion so she was obliged to accede to his commands; that Gaurav followed her to the place of her uncle and early in the morning he raped her during the night of 21/22.2.1998; that complainant (the aunt) called the father and mother of minor Meenakshi from Moradabad. They reached Delhi at 2.00 p.m. After deliberations by the family members at Naraina and keeping in view the gravity of the matter, it was decided to report the matter to the police. The petitioner came to the police station at about 3.30 p.m. with a detailed complaint accompanied by her husband and Meenakshi's father and met the Duty Officer, P.S. Naraina and requested him to enable a meeting with the S.H.O. The Duty Officer did not allow the petitioner and other people to meet the S.H.O. on the pretext that the S.H.O. had been on night duty and hence he is having rest in his chamber and said that it would not be proper to disturb him; that the petitioner and her family members requested the Duty Officer to allow them to meet the Additional S.H.O. but they were told that Additional S.H.O. was not in the Police Station; that because of the persistence the petitioner and her family members were taken by the Duty Officer to one S.I. upstairs on the first floor; that without recording the statement SI asked about the basis for the complaint; that in between the conduct of the said S.I. became completely unbecoming of a policeman. He asked many embarrassing questions to the minor girl which resulted in serious humiliation to the prosecutrix and her parents. After half an hour, the said S.I. came along with the petitioner, prosecutrix and the relatives and met the S.H.O. in the ground floor room. The S.H.O. directed the said SI to visit the spot and take statement of the neighbours. The said SI along with the petitioner took the victim, the father of the victim. The victim identified the jhuggi where she was raped by the accused. The S.I. came back hurriedly and reported the whole matter to the S.H.O. in presence of the petitioner and her family members. The S.H.O. threw the complaint on the face of the petitioner and told that they were not going to register the F.I.R. However, on the insistence of the petitioner, receipt of the complaint was given. The copy of the complaint is Annexure P-1. At 6.30 p.m. the petitioner preferred a complaint to D.C.P. at P.S. Vasant Vihar under proper receipt. On the same day at 8.30 p.m. the father of the victim gave an urgent telegram to the Commissioner of Police, Lt. Governor etc. but till date respondents No.1 and 2 did not register any F.I.R. against the accused.

(3.) It will be seen from the above that what transpires from the averments in the petition is that a serious offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code allegedly took place during the night of 21/22.2.1998. The petitioner, the aunt of the victim with written complaint approached P.S. Naraina at about 3.30 p.m.; gave written complaint to the D.C.P. at P.S. Vasant Vihar at about 6.30 p.m. and the father of the victim sent telegram at about 8.30 p.m. to the respondent No.1, Lt. Governor of Delhi etc. yet no F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code was registered and no investigation commenced till 26.3.1998.