PAMMI ALIAS PREETI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the local police to bring on record the inquiry conducted by them. in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M. No. 21506-M of 1999 decided on 27.7.1999; seeking quashment of the order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, vide which the application of the petitioner for further investigation in the matter under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was rejected; and also praying therein that the investigation of the two FIRs be transferred to CBI.

(2.) IN the petition it was alleged that petitioner got married to Ved Parkash in the year 1995 and out of said wedlock, she gave birth to a daughter, who was now aged 3 years. It was alleged that the husband of the petitioner was running a joint business in partnership with his elder brother namely Shri Jagdish Manchanda. It was alleged that it was all going well till the time when said Shri Jagdish Manchanda started having an evil eye on the property of the husband of the petitioner and started making plan to oust him of the business. It was alleged that as the luck would have it, even the petitioner started having strained relations with her husband, as a result of which the petitioner went to her parents' house. It was alleged that husband of the petitioner started making demand of money as he was not on good terms with his brother. It was alleged that on the night of February 6, 1997, the husband of the petitioner visited her parents' house and wanted to take the petitioner forcibly back to her matrimonial home, but the petitioner did not accompany him, whereupon he left for his house to Faridabad. It was alleged that on the next morning, petitioner received information that her husband had died in his house under suspicious circumstances. It was alleged that thereupon, the petitioner accompanied by her relatives came to her matrimonial home, where she came to know that the brothers had a fight during night and that in the early morning her husband was found dead. It was alleged that the petitioner stayed at her matrimonial home till 4.3.1997, but her in-laws ill-treated her. It was alleged that the petitioner had a feeling that her in-laws wanted to grab the whole property of her deceased husband and had created such circumstances by which the petitioner apprehended threat to her life and she was forced to go back to her parents house. It was alleged that subsequently, the petitioner came to know that her brother-in-law had forged certain documents in order to misappropriate the assets of the business upon which the petitioner made a complaint dated 14.3.1997 and after much pursuance FIR No. 573 dated 8.5.1997 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 120-B IPC was registered against the elder brother of the husband of the petitioner and his other close relatives. Copies of various documents which proved the forgery etc. were attached with the petition. It was alleged that finding themselves in difficulty, the brother-in-law of the petitioner levelled allegation against the petitioner that her husband had died due to harassment having been given by the petitioner and her relatives and they also levelled allegations of theft etc. against her. It was alleged that petitioner made complaint to the Chief Minister on 27.8.1998 in which she levelled allegations about in- action of the police and about the DIG of the police by the name of Shri P.V. Rathore, helping the accused and putting pressure upon the local police. It was alleged that Chief Minister had directed the Director Vigilance to get the case thoroughly examined. It was alleged that Director Vigilance had made a detailed report and submitted the same to the office of Chief Minister, Haryana, but the said report was not brought to the light, as same reveals the connivance of the local police with the accused and also the role of Shri P.V. Rathore, DIG, who has now been promoted as I.G. Police. Copy of the complaint submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Minister was attached with the petition as also copy of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was alleged that from the inquiries held by Crime Branch as well as the Vigilance Branch, it was revealed that the documents had been forged. It was alleged that the police was under pressure of the aforesaid DIG, now I.G., and was making all efforts to ensure that the accused get away from the crime. It was alleged that the petitioner was forced to file Crl. M. No. 21506-M of 1999, which was decided on 27.7.1999, whereby the Crime Branch of Haryana was directed to complete the investigation of both the cases bearing FIR No. 573 of 1997 and 207 of 198, the first one having been registered at the instance of the petitioner and the other at the instance of the accused party, within a period of 6 months. Copy of the said order was also annexed with the present petition. It was alleged that after disposal of the said Criminal Misc. Petition, vide order dated 27.7.1999, the petitioner came to know that the police had already filed an untracked report in respect of FIR No. 573 of 1997, which was registered at the instance of the petitioner in PS Central Faridabad. It was alleged that the petitioner made an application dated 5.11.1999 to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, requesting the court to direct the investigating agency to further investigate the crime under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by the court concerned vide order dated 19.11.1999. Copies of the application and order were also annexed with the petition. It was alleged that from the various facts referred to above, it was clear that forgery had been committed and entries had been made ante dated. It was alleged that record from the Crime Branch and Vigilance Department may be summoned and the matter should be sent to the CBI in respect of both the FIRs for investigation, as Haryana Police was interested to shield the accused under the influence of one I.G. Police, Haryana. It was accordingly prayed that the order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad be set aside and further investigation be ordered under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the investigation in respect of both the FIRs be handed over to CBI.

(3.) DURING the hearing of the case on 22.11.2000, the learned Counsel appearing for the State had submitted that neither the record nor the inquiry report in respect of inquiry conducted by the Crime Branch was available with him. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that even the Vigilance Branch had conducted some inquiry pertaining to the matter in question and that the said file was available with the State Government. Accordingly, the case was adjourned with a direction that the entire record in respect of inquiries conducted by Crime Branch as also by the Vigilance Branch shall be made available to the court. On the adjourned date, the record of the Crime Branch as also the Vigilance Branch had been produced before the court. Copy of the enquiry report dated 21.12.1998, conducted by the State Vigilance Bureau had been placed on record. As per the said report, the General Power of Attorney was forged and had not been executed by Ved Parkash Manchanda, deceased. It was also reported that the documents were entered in the register of Notary Public on back date and that the papers were also filed in the HUDA office on back date, both with the object of keeping the present petitioner Smt. Pammi (widow of Ved Parkash Manchanda) from getting her and her child's due share in the property left by Ved Parkash Manchanda, deceased. It was also reported that the local police should be asked to investigate the case further, taking into account the FSL report, the file regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the HUDA peon, the original register of the Notary Pubic, the stamp vendor and the admitted signatures of Ved Parkash, deceased. It was further reported that the orders may be passed to hand over these documents to local police for further action and the district police be asked to take suitable action based on the report of FSL. The learned Counsel appearing for the State had submitted before me on that date the State Government had ordered the said report to be "filled" and that no action was taken on the said report of the State Vigilance Bureau. Part arguments were heard on the said date and the case was adjourned for remaining arguments with the direction that the entire record shall be made available to the court on the said date.