NEELAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein with a prayer that investigation of the case be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation as the investigation in the case is not fair.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for decision of this case are that Cr. W.P. No. 24 of 2011 was preferred by Manish Kumar on the allegations that he was wedded to Neelam Kumari and that she was detained by her parents against her will. He was not allowed to cohabit with her. According to him, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Bilaspur, on 6.4.2011 and registered on that date itself. Photographs including album etc. were placed on record to prove the purported solemnization of the marriage etc. Notice of the petition was issued to the parties therein, where-after both of us talked to Neelam Kumari in Chambers to ascertain her version of the entire incident. She narrated in detail the painful episode as to how she was allegedly forced, coerced and threatened to stay with Manish Kumar to purportedly enter into the alleged matrimonial alliance. She described the complete harrowing details how she was taken from place to place, confined in a room and subjected to sexual abuse. Her statement was recorded when she expressed her wish to stay with her parents and not with Manish. She was repeatedly affirmed that she had been coerced and threatened into the so called alliance. We are not going into this aspect for the time being, as it may prejudice the case of both the parties. But suffice it to say that writ of habeas-corpus was dismissed after the statement of Neelam Kumari was recorded.

(3.) As a sequel to that writ petition, first information report No. 223 was lodged in Police Station Balh on 16.09.2011 for offences under Sections 366, 368, 376, 344, 506 and 120-B Penal Code and a detailed complaint Annexure P-3 has been filed by Neelam. We also find an averment in the petition, which is supported by Annexure P-1 which is a complaint addressed by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, stating that on 8.9.2011 she had gone to Police Station Balh for registration of a case, but the police personnel did not entertain the complaint nor register any case. She had gone there with her father and waited in the police station for about 2½ hours. She even presented a copy of the order passed by this Court in Cr.WP No. 24 of 2011 in which we had directed that it would be open to the petitioner to approach the police for appropriate action, but nothing was done. The petition then proceeds with the pleading that on receipt of this application, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi directed the registration of the case, but her submission is that the investigation is not fair.