SUMEHAR CHAND NARWAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant-respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the police stating that she is residing in a house constructed by her father-in-law. Petitioner No.1 Sumer Narwal has constructed a house on the upper side of the informant's house. The house of the petitioner No.1 has 4-5 storeys. He has installed a CCTV camera in the courtyard of his balcony which is facing the lintel of the house of the informant. The informant keeps her clothes, undergarments etc. on the lintel for drying them. She suspected that Sumer Narwal and his sons were watching her with a CCTV camera due to which she could not go to the roof of her house. The informant's husband asked the petitioner Sumer Narwal to remove the CCTV camera or to change its direction to his house. Complaints were made to the police and the police had also asked Sumer Narwal to remove the CCTV camera. He was also asked to show the focus/footage in the control panel/mobile but Sumer Narwal refused to do so. Police registered FIR No. 213 of 2020 and conducted the investigation. After the completion of the investigations, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR and the challan pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-V, Shimla. It was asserted that the FIR was filed to harass the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is a respectable member of the family and his relatives hold respectable positions in the society. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons of petitioner No.1. The FIR was lodged to harass them and spoil their careers. A civil dispute is pending between the parties regarding the boundaries of the land. A civil suit No. 119 of 2020 was filed by the wife of petitioner No.1, titled Manjusha Narwal Vs. Munshi Ram in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Shimla. This dispute arose in the year 2012 and was settled by way of a Compromise Deed, dtd. 21/3/2013. The informant filed the present FIR after violating the terms of the compromise. The wife of petitioner No.1 also sent a legal notice to the informant's family members. She had also served another notice in which she apprehended that she and her family members would be falsely implicated. The police did not conduct the proper investigation as is apparent from the entries in the Daily Diary annexed to the petition. The construction work was going on at the time of the registration of the FIR and the CCTV camera was installed to monitor the same. The allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offence. The witnesses are making false statements to help the informant. Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the building where the camera is installed. The camera was installed by petitioner No.1's wife for the surveillance of the entrance gallery six months before lodging of the FIR. Petitioner No. 1 and his wife have two residences and their stay in the building is casual. Hence it became necessary to have surveillance of the building. The petitioners would have hidden the camera had they got any bad intentions. The police conducted a biased investigation. The complaint was the counterblast to teach the petitioners a lesson for filing the civil suit. Therefore, they prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequent proceedings arising out of the same be quashed.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and the petitioners having not come to the Court with clean hands. It was asserted that a cognizable offence was disclosed and FIR No. 213 of 2020, dtd. 11/10/2020 was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 354-D of IPC. The police recorded the statement of witnesses and added Ss. 504, 506 and 509 of IPC. The petitioners did not produce the CCTV camera and the device, therefore, Sec. 201 of IPC was added. The challan has been filed and is pending trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-5, Shimla. The offences are punishable under Ss. 354-D, 504, 506, 509 and 201 of IPC which are heinous and serious in nature and are against the public at large. The investigation was done properly and there was no bias. The petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.