MAYAWATI Vs. HUKAM CHAND ATTREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Mayawati lodged a written complaint on 2.11.1995 at Police Station City, Hissar alleging that she, a widow, belonging to a Scheduled Caste and working as a Peon under the respondent, was called to the office for duty on 19.11.1995 on the ground that there was some interview. According to her, she had gone to the office on that day at about 3 p.m. and she was called inside his office by the respondent-Hukam Chand Attreja, who was then posted as Superintendent of Post Offices, Hissar Division. She also claimed that the respondent misbehaved with her (did Behuda Harkat) and she came out of the office, but after five minutes, she was again called, and the respondent asked her to go to his residence with the Driver Rajinder for washing clothes. She further claimed that she went to the residence of the respondent, where the respondent reached after 20 minutes, and asked her to clean his kitchen. According to the petitioner, after she had entered the kitchen, the respondent also come to the kitchen, caught hold of her from behind, and started molesting her (doing Harkat). The petitioner also alleged that after extricating herself, when she was opening the door, the respondent threatened her calling as Saali Dhendhni, that if she dared to complain to anybody, he would kill her. The petitioner also claimed that the respondent had insulted her for being the member of the Scheduled Caste.

(2.) THOUGH the D.D.R. entry was made on 23.11.1995 the F.I.R. was registered on 24.11.1995 under Section 354 I.P.C. After investigation, Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also added. On the application by the respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar, on 21.12.1995, the case was re-investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recorded the statements of Rajinder and Sham Lal Bhatia, and examined the prosecutrix. He found the case to be false and thereafter a report for cancellation was sent. On notice, petitioner-Mayawati filed a protest petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, after perusing the records and hearing the counsel for both the sides, held that the cancellation report is based on sound reasons and accepted it. Therefore, he discharged the respondent.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the both the sides and perused the records.