K. Varalakshmi vs M. Keshavan and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J—The petitioner is before this court seeking for a direction to be issued to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to protect the life of the petitioners at the hands of the first respondent by holding proper enquiry or in the alternative, to transfer the case to CBI and also to grant such other relief or reliefs that this court deems fit in the circumstances.

The petitioner is also seeking for issue of a writ of direction to proceed with all the complaints filed by the petitioners and protect her life. During the pendency of this petition I.A. No. 1/2014 is also filed seeking a direction that the petitioner be provided protection against the continued atrocities of respondent No. 1.

Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed objection statement.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. In the back ground of the complaint, which has been made by the petitioner against the first respondent, it cannot be lost sight that the petitioner is the wife of the first respondent and there is strained marital relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent. In that light, the petitioner through a complaint, as also the averments made in the petition, has referred to certain property transactions where under the petitioner is said to have entered into transactions with third party purchasers and even the sale deed has been executed through their daughter Leenachandu. The case of the petitioner is that despite such transaction being completed by the petitioner through her daughter to sell the said property, the first respondent has thereafter created a document in respect of the very same property seeking to transfer the property to his own sister. It is also contended that in that light, there being certain disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent, the first respondent has taken law into his hands and has assaulted the petitioner and despite the petitioner having alleged in the complaint that there is an attempt on her life and the case was sought to be registered under section 307 of IPC, no further action has been taken in that regard. The petitioner has relied on the communication at Annexure-A dated 5.3.2010 to contend that despite such direction being issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, no action has been taken by the jurisdictional police and also from the objections filed before this court, the respondents 2 and 3 have taken the matter very lightly and have not initiated any action.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, (2013) 12 AD 209 : AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014) CriLJ 470 : (2013) 6 CTC 353 : (2014) 1 JCC 1 : (2013) 14 JT 399 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 979 : (2013) 13 SCALE 559 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCJ 68 , to indicate that onus is on the police authorities to register a case when such complaints are filed and appropriate action be taken in that regard.

At the outset, in so for as the legal position as enunciated in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there can be no dispute that as and when complaints are filed before the police authorities, the same is to be taken seriously. However, what is also to be kept in mind while issuing such directions is that, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also observed the nature in which the police authorities may carry out preliminary enquiries before registering complaints when certain domestic issues also arise before them though in the nature of criminal complaint. In that light, having taken note of the grievance as put forth in the instant petition and since reliance is placed on the communication at Annexure-A, dated 5.3.2010, a question would arise at this juncture, as to whether the grievance as made by the petitioner against respondents 2 and 3 would be justified in view of the stand taken in the objection statement.

A perusal of the objection statement would refer to the nature of enquiry that has been made by the jurisdictional police based on the complaint that was filed by the petitioner. The nature of relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent has been taken into consideration and it has also been taken note that the first respondent was an employee of ITC factory, who is aged about 61 years and also with regard to the properties owned and the manner in which the same is being enjoyed by the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of a portion of the tenement each in the building. In that light, reference is also made to Cr. No. 526/2010, 271/2012 and 53/2013 and the manner in which the proceedings were initiated. Having noticed the same, crime numbers which have been registered and the proceedings that have been held would become relevant, since the petitioner has placed reliance on a communication at Annexure-A dated 5.3.2010.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made serious allegations that no action has been taken despite such communication, the very fact that case in Cr. Nos. 526/2010, 271/2012 and 52/2013 are registered subsequent to the said date will disclose that based on the complaints, proceedings have been initiated. Further what is also to be noticed is that in respect of the proceedings, in so far as Cr. No. 271/2012, the matter is pending before the jurisdictional court in C.C. No. 2401/2011, while the proceedings pursuant to Cr. No. 51/2013 had been decided before this court. The petitioner in C.C. No. 34241/2003 and the first respondent herein who is accused in the said two cases has been acquitted in the said proceedings. In addition, as against the subsequent complaints filed by the petitioner the cases in Cr. No. 284/2012 and 576/2013 have been registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would no doubt refer to the complaint produced at Annexure-N dated 4.5.2011, to claim that no action has been taken in that regard. Having taken into consideration these aspects of the matter, even if the communication at Annexure-A and complaints at Annexure-N2 are taken note, the fact as already referred is that in respect of the subsequent complaints, crimes have been registered, investigation has been completed and the matters are also pending before the court below in one of the case, while in the other case the first respondent has been acquitted. In that view, even if the complaints at Annexure-N2 is taken into consideration, the grievance of the petitioner essentially is with regard to the property transaction that is being entered into by the first respondent to the detriment of the petitioner.

In that back ground, what is also to be taken into consideration is that the petitioner has instituted a proceedings in C. Misc. No. 202/2010 under domestic violence Act and certain injunction order has been passed against the first respondent in the inter-se proceedings. All these aspects of the matter would disclose that essentially, the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent relates to certain marital discord and in that light the manner of enjoyment of the properties between the parties. Ultimately, if the matter is to be taken to its logical conclusion, except for the allegations made by the petitioners about she being assaulted by the first respondent and in that regard, the action to be taken it will have to be proceeded in accordance with law. To the said extent as already noticed, the proceedings have been initiated and the matters are pending before the jurisdictional court and in one of the matters the first respondent has been acquitted. If these aspects are kept in view, the allegations of the petitioner that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are dormant and are not taking any action in the matter, cannot be accepted. It is only that the petitioner has been filing repeated complaints against first respondent and in most of the complaints action has been taken and the matters are pending. Even at this stage, if there are disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent, which lead to the respondent No. 1 committing cognizable offences, certainly, the petitioner would be entitled to file appropriate complaints against the first respondent and if any such action is required to be taken before the jurisdictional court, the same shall be taken in accordance with law. Even if the jurisdictional police do not act upon such complaints of the petitioners, the petitioner has the remedy of filing a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, in the instant facts, where I have already noticed that based on the complaints, crime has been registered and proceedings are pending before court, it cannot be a circumstance where this court is required to intervene in the matter and issue any direction in that regard. If the petitioner is alleging that there is threat to her life from the first respondent and if any protection is required, it would also be open for the petitioner to file such requests before the competent police authorities, who would assess threat perception and find out as to whether any protection is to be provided to the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, reserving such liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief, this petition stands disposed of.