VEENA @ SAKSHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the petitioner is seeking directions to respondents No.1 & 2 to hold an enquiry into the complaint dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) and to take action against the private respondents No.3 to 5.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that her husband was an addict and has deserted her long ago and she is living with her minor children. The private respondents No.3 to 5 wanted to get the house vacated and with that oblique motive, they forcibly entered the house on 30.7.2013 to threaten and scare her and gave her a beating and warned her with dire consequences in case she did not vacate the house. The petitioner tried to call the police from her mobile phone but the phone was snatched. It was pleaded that respondent No.5 also tried to outrage her modesty. The petitioner was afraid of venturing out of her home and did not visit the hospital to take first aid. She went to Civil Hospital Phillaur on the next day but the doctor refused to examine her. The petitioner then approached the S.D.M. to get herself medically examined and moved application Annexure P-1. Her medical examination was carried out thereafter. The petitioner had further disclosed that civil proceedings were going on with respect to the house in question and the respondents wanted to take advantage of the fact. It is pleaded that respondent No.2 failed to register the FIR and get the complaint investigated, rather she was being called to the police station and they pressurised her to compromise the matter. The prayer of the petitioner was that respondent No.2 should be directed to hold an enquiry into the representation.

(3.) Notice was given to the respondents. Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed their reply and it was pleaded that the complaint was entrusted to ASI Dilbag Singh for investigation, who had conducted an inquiry and residents of the Mohalla and Smt.Shama Sharma who was Vice President of the Municipal Council, Phillaur came present and it came to light that Veena, petitioner had two sisters and four brothers. Their father Megh Raj owned a house and shop in which all the sons and daughters had equal shares including the petitioner. Respondents No.3 & 4 were brothers of the petitioner and were doing business in the shop, whereas the house was in possession of their mother who had died on 16.02.2013. The petitioner was in occupation of the entire house. It was revealed during inquiry that no incident had occurred on 30.07.2013 and the respondents had gone to speak to Veena and were seeking partition but Veena had abused them and she had not sustained any injury and nor any injury was mentioned in the complaint submitted by her and she had procured MLR two days later. It was pleaded that petitioner did not come forward to make statement on the basis of the MLR and it was revealed that no one had misbehaved with her. It was pleaded that complaint submitted on 23.10.2012 by the petitioner had been inquired into by the Superintendent of Police who had recommended filing of that complaint. It was pleaded that the petitioner was moving false complaints in order to retain the property. It was pleaded that the report submitted by ASI Dilbag Singh was approved by the SHO and had been filed.