SEETA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this petition is for directing the respondents to register a case under Sections 452, 342, 354, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Baljinder Singh, Harwinder Singh, Jit Singh, Bharangi Singh, Joginder Singh and Charna Bawa, who are stated to have come to the house of the petitioner initially on 29.9.2001 and misbehaved with her daughters and outraged their modesty. Further allegations against them are that they had occupied a portion of the house consisting of 8 rooms which was part of the joint house comprised of 12 rooms, a portion of which forms part of the Gurdwara premises. A complaint in this regard was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Patiala by the petitioner on 6.10.2001 but no action was taken by him. The above named persons again repeated the same incident on 11.10.2001 regarding which another complaint dated 13.10.2001 was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala and other authorities named in the petition but no action was taken by the authorities. Thereafter the present petition was filed.

(2.) NOTICE of this petition was given to the respondents. While denying the allegations made in the petition, it has been stated by Rajinder Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajpura, who has filed reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the form of affidavit that the house of the brother of the petitioner's husband is located close to Gurdwara Sahib and the boundary wall of Gurdwara had already been constructed. The petitioner used to tether her animals on the vacant land of the Gurdwara and thereafter she designed to usurp the said vacant land of the Gurdwara. On 11.10.2001, the B.D.P.O., Rajpura inspected the spot and reported the matter to the local Police, Rajpura. Thereafter, ASI Surjit Rai, Incharge Local Police, Rajpura, Basantpura and S.H.O. P.S. Sadar, Rajpura reached the spot. Sarpanch Malkiat Singh and other members of the Panchayat also arrived there. In their presence the B.D.P.O. demolished the feeding trough (Khurli) constructed by the petitioner. Upon this, the petitioner and her son started abusing the B.D.P.O. and they were stopped from doing so by ASI Surjit Rai and S.H.O. Piara Singh. On this account and as a counter-blast the present petition has been filed.

(3.) MANIFESTLY , no document has been annexed with the petition in order to support the stand taken that the portion which the above named persons had occupied factually was owned or possessed by the petitioner on the date when the alleged incident had taken place. Further general allegations of outraging the modesty of the daughters of the petitioner had been made without attributing specific roles to the persons noticed earlier. It is entirely improbable that the same incident could have been repeated on 11.10.2001 as stated by the petitioner. Taking into account the totality of circumstances on record, no case is made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.