VASANTHI Vs. JAYA PRAKASHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by the petitioner has been taken up as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on being marked to this Court by the Supreme Court. In her letter to the Chief Justice of India, the petitioner has stated that she is a practising advocate of this Court and a divorcee with two children, who are studying in Puttaparthy. On 27-2-1995, three persons were taken illegally by Rajendra-Nagar Police and allegedly beaten black and blue. Their mother got a petition filed before this Court of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus on 2-3-1995. Sri. E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, who was then the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has alleged, came to her residence on 6-3-1995, at about 6.30 p.m. and asked her to withdraw the writ petition as the then Home Minister was interested. When she refused to do so, Sri Bhagiratha Rao threatened her with dire consequences and left her place. She has alleged, "Before this incidence, for one and half year Mr. E. V. B. Rao continuously harassing me by regular visits and letters requesting me to marry him and stay as second wife as he was holding PP's post and having respect to his age I could not complain to anybody." Taking advantage of his office, according to the petitioner, Shri Bhagiratha Rao activated the Inspector and office in-charge of Nallakunta Police Station to arrest her and she was taken to the police station by the latter around 7.45 p.m. on the same date i.e., 6-3-1995. She was beaten very badly and was asked to sign on blank papers and when she refused, she was threatened by the Inspector of Police that he could make her stand naked in the police station the whole night. When, however, she strongly protested, she was shifted to Central Crime Station by the Inspector at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning of 7-3-1995. She was kept at one or the other police station for more than 26 hours and on 7-3-1995, at about 9.40 pm., she was taken to the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate's residence and, "without First Information Report, without Crime Number, without charges" the Magistrate granted bail and she was released by 11.30 p.m. After returning home, she found her scooter-AP-9G-6682 missing, which, according to her version, had been taken away by the police. On the following day, she shifted her residence to Barakathpura. She met some of the Judges of the Court and narrated the incidents to them and filed a petition C.C. No. 168 of 1995, on 13-3-1995, against Shri Jayaprakash Rao, Inspector of Police, Nallakunta, contending that since she had filed the above Habeas Corpus petition, he had falsely filed a criminal case against her and had been saying that unless she withdrew the Habeas Corpus Petition, she would be implicated in false cases. Petitioner has alleged, "pamphlets were distributed by P.P. (Shri Bhagiratha Rao) and Shri Jayaprakash Rao that 'she was arrested because she was involved in immoral traffic act case and that the Inspector of Police (Shri Jayaprakash Rao) had personally seen her involving in sexual acts with one of his best friends". The letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India has posed, if he (the Inspector of Police) had really done his duty - (1) why he had not sent her/for medical examination; (2) why did he not produce her before the Court immediately; (3) why had he not taken a lady constable and panchas when he entered her residence and why had he not taken her to Court and asserted, "But till now no enquiry has taken place. The then Advocate General concerned the police and tried to compromise to withdraw the case If I don't further proceed and this was posted to 4-4-1995. On 3-4-1995, at about 6.30 p.m. Mr. E. V. B. Rao came to my residence place with a bundle of pamphlets saying that if I don't oblige his wish he is going to distribute the pamphlets and will never allow the police for compromise saying this he tried to outrage my modesty. When I started shouting my neighbours telephoned to police and police immediately arrested Public Prosecutor from my residence and took to P.S. Kachiguda and booked case against him under Section 448, 509 I.P.C. which are bailable and being Public Prosecutor he could manage the police and booked me under Sections 420 and 417 I.P.C. which are non-bailable. Here it is surprising to say that no lady should go to Police Station to complaint against a man who is holding a prestigious post. First I thought of suicide but as there is no one to look after my children, I could not dare this." She has, in the letter, requested as follows : "I am requesting you to conduct CB CID enquiry and let all the facts came out. You are not only saving a lady's life but also profession where lady advocate should practice fearlessly and fairly." The petitioner has also filed Criminal Petition No. 864 of 1995, to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 52 of 1995, dated 6-3-1995, on the file of Nallakunta Police Station, which is allegedly registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, against her. It appears the Bar Council of the State issued notice to the petitioner alleging professional misconduct as well as to Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, the then Public Prosecutor and the latter filed before this Court Writ Petition No. 9490 of 1995, questioning the notice of the Bar Council of the State, The said petition has, however, since been disposed of, but the proceeding before the Bar Council has proceeded with an order or removal of the petitioner from its roll, against which she has appealed before the Bar Council of India and the latter had stayed the order of the State Bar Council, vide its order in DCL/D/792/96 dated 22-6-1996. It transpired in the course of the hearing that the petitioner on the one hand and the fourth respondent Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao on the other hand were instrumental in lodgment of cases against each other and having noticed that the number of cases pending investigation had gone to 7 (seven), a Bench of this Court directed for transfer of all the cases, including Crime No. 52 of 1995, dated 6-3-1995, of Nallakunta Police Station, to C.B.C.I.D. to get them investigated by a specially appointed Police Officer for the said purpose. Eventually, Shri D. Gopala Krishnam Raju, Deputy Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad took up the investigation into the seven cases registered against either the petitioner or the fourth respondent (Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao). Shri Raju submitted the reports of investigation in respect of Crime No. 51 of 1995, under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, of Nallakunta Police Station; Crime No. 60 of 1995, under Sections 448 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code of Kachiguda Police Station; Crime No. 61 of 1995, under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of Kachiguda Police Station; Crime No. 94 of 1996, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadpally Police Station and reported that investigation into the Crime No. 35 of 1995, under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadapally Police Station; Crime No. 379 of 1995, under Sections 448 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadapally Police Station and Crime No. 380 of 1995, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadapally Police Station could not be completed as the local police had claimed that it had completed the investigation in Crime No. 379 of 1995, and already reported under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he advisedly had filed a petition seeking permission to further investigate under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which application he was awaiting orders and crucial documents pertaining to Crime No. 35 of 1995, were not forthcoming for which he was making all efforts and a few witnesses in Crime No. 380 of 1995, and 379 of 1995, were still to be examined. In his report in respect of Crime No. 52 of 1995, the Officer (Shri Raju) has appended the following remark;

(2.) Shri Raju, Deputy Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, C.I.D. has since submitted all the reports.

(3.) To complete the narration of facts and events, we have to record that the Officer, who was asked to investigate the case, has found that allegations in Crime No. 35 of 1995 of Chikkadapally Police Station as respects involvement of the petitioner along with others in the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are supported by the evidence and accordingly in respect of the said offences, he has submitted the report for action against the petitioner and other named accused. In respect of other cases, he has opined there is truth in the allegation of the petitioner that Shri Bhagiratha Rao visited her on the dates mentioned by her in the reports to the police, but allegations that he was involved in any cognizable offence otherwise are not supported by any cogent evidence, except the assertions of the petitioner and some oral support to her evidence by a Clerk, who has been working under her. In respect of Crime No. 52 of 1995, the fact that the petitioner was taken to the police station is not disputed, except insofar as the statement in the counter-affidavit by the Inspector of Police - Shri Jayaprakash Rao is concerned. He has stated, inter alia, besides denying the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner, that he received a telephonic complaint on 6-3-1995, at about 9 p.m. that the petitioner was running a brothel house. The police went to her house after verifying the information at 10.15 p.m. Details show, according to him, the arrest was effected are stated in the remand report dated 7-3-1995, and investigations revealed that the petitioner was running a brothel house and was offering sexual acts. He has asserted "I obtained a search warrant from the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Along with two women constables and other staff members I proceeded to the house No. 2-1-435, Nallakunta' and stated -