SANDHYA BANSAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of this petition preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 77 of 2013, registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station, Parwanoo, under sections 353, 332, 34 IPC and has further sought transfer of investigation of case FIR No. 20 of 2013 registered with Police Station CID on 11.9.2013 to the Central Bureau Investigation. The petitioner claims that she and her family members including her husband and her two children as well as two other children were meted out with brutal treatment by the police personnels on the mid night of September 4th and 5th 2013 near Chakki Mor, Police Station, Parwanoo. It is further alleged that they were kept in illegal confinement in Police Station, Parwanoo lock up for two nights and one day (more than 36 hours). The precise case of the petitioner is that she alongwith her husband was going towards Shimla in their own car and had some altercation with some truck driver and for which purposes he went to lodge a complaint with the two young policemen standing at the Sales Tax Barrier at Chakki Mor. Those police personnels instead of discharging their statutory function, asked the son of the petitioner who was driving the car to park the same by the side of the road. It is thereafter alleged that the police officials started making uncalled for inquiries and used most filthy and derogatory language and then without any provocation gave forceful slap on the face of the petitioner, due to which blood oozed out from her mouth. The petitioner's son objected to this unruly behaviour, but it had no impact. Certain other allegations have been set out in the petition and it is alleged that since the accused happened to be the policemen, therefore, they are not cooperating and have falsely registered an FIR No. 77 of 2013 against her, while on the other hand, the petitioner with great difficulty, could lodge FIR No. 20 of 2013 against the police personnels.

(2.) IT is contended that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR shows that no cognizable offence stands disclosed and the facts narrated therein do not show in which manner the petitioner and other family members deterred the complainant from discharging his duty. It is further alleged that it cannot be believed that a woman would dare to assault a police functionary and it is only to save (his/their skin) that this FIR has been registered, because the medical examination conducted upon petitioner and other family members would reveal the brutal manner in which they have been assaulted. The FIR has been lodged out of vindictiveness and its contents are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can reach to a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the petitioner and her family members.

(3.) TO the similar effect is the reply filed by the Additional Director General of Police (CID), who has been arrayed as respondent No. 3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the petition.