KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari directing the official respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and her family members from danger at the hands of private respondent No.4-Pritam Singh and his associates of harassing as well as involving the petitioner and her family members in false and fabricated cases in connivance with the police officials and political persons.

(2.) Briefly stated the petition has been filed on the averments that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondent No.4 for her treatment repayable with interest at the rate of 10% (but period of rests is not mentioned in the petition). The petitioner repaid the loan on different dates. The petitioner had even taken loan of Rs.7,80,000/- from the bank and paid the abovesaid amount to respondent No.4. The petitioner had paid amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in total for loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent No.4 by taking advantage of illiteracy of the petitioner and her family members got agreement to sell executed from the petitioner in respect of her house on 28.02.2016 on the pretext of the amount of loan/interest being due against her. Thereafter, respondent No.4 claimed that amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was due against the petitioner and threatened the petitioner and her family members to pay the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- or to vacate the house. The petitioner submitted application dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and application (Annexure P-3) to the SHO, Dabua, Faridabad for taking action against respondent No.4 for committing fraud and fraudulently preparing the documents but no action has been taken on the same. One Renu, who is daughter of maternal uncle of respondent No.4, lodged FIR No.102 dated 18.12.2018 under Sections 376-D, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') at Women Police Station NIT, Faridabad against her son Sonu and Azad, inter alia, alleging rape by Sonu and Azad but on investigation the FIR was found to be false and cancellation report dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure P-2) was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Mahila, NIT, Faridabad. FIR No.146 dated 31.12.2018 under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC was lodged by one Ashok Kumar alleging theft of milk, 3 kg. cow ghee and amount of Rs.4,000/- from his dairy by some unknown person. Subsequently, Suresh Chand, husband of the petitioner was falsely involved in the case and arrested by the SHO concerned after about five months of the alleged FIR. One Jai Bhagwan submitted application dated 14.03.2019 to the SHO, Police Station Ballabhgarh alleging that his wife Guddi and sister-in-law Heena (niece of mother-in-law of respondent No.4) who had gone to Fatehpur Beloch to attend marriage on 06.03.2019 were missing. FIR was registered and statement of Heena was got recorded on 13.04.2019 who alleged that the petitioner, her son Sonu and Mukesh had kidnapped Guddi and her (Heena) and Sonu and Mukesh had committed rape on her (Heena). On investigation, the petitioner was exonerated by the SHO, Police Station Ballabhgarh vide report dated 17.07.2019 which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad on 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.4 has tried to involve the petitioner and her family members in false cases. The petitioner submitted complaint dated 07.05.2019 to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad for taking action against respondent No.4 and Yoginder etc. but no action has been taken by the police.

(3.) Reply was filed on behalf of official respondents No.1 to 3 by Gajender Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, NIT, Faridabad. In the said reply it has been submitted that the petitioner made complaint dated 22.11.2018 to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad and inquiry was got conducted which revealed that the petitioner had taken loan from respondent No.4 who got the agreement to sell executed from the petitioner; that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 are relatives and there are money transactions between them and that no cognizable offence was disclosed by the facts verified. It has been further submitted that in FIR No.102 dated 18.12.2018 registered under Sections 376-D, 506 read with Section 120-B of the IPC cancellation report was prepared. FIR No.146 dated 31.12.2018 was registered in which husband of the petitioner was involved. It has been further submitted in the reply that if any complaint is received, a proper inquiry is made and if the complaint is found false, no action is taken against the petitioner. While claiming that no complaint dated 07.05.2019 was made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, the respondents No.1 to 3 have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.