Nirmal Kaur vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This miscellaneous application has been moved by Shri Rajinder Pal Anand, Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Saheb, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20509M of 1997 (Nirmal Kaur v. State of Punjab) praying for recalling of order dated 30.3.1998 passed by this Court (Hon''ble Mrs. (Dr.) Sarojnei Saksena, as she then was).

Smt. Nirmal Kaur has filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 8051 of 1996 alongwith her daughter Maninder Kaur against the State of Punjab, State of Haryana, Union Territory Administration, the Director General of Police, Patiala, Sh. Pushpinder Singh Gill, DSP Nabha, the present applicant Sh. Rajinder Pal Anand, ASI Naranjan Singh, HC Harbhajan Singh and Jaspal Singh Driver; under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to make suitable necessary amendments and additions in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Punjab Police Rules, 1934, making it mandatory that all the police stations should have regular female staff of the rank of officers as well as constables and they should remain present 24 hours. Interim guidelines were also sought till the Code of Criminal Procedure and Police Rules were suitably amended. The petitioner Nirmal Kaur also prayed for an enquiry to be entrusted to the District and Sessions Judge to go into the allegations of harassment, humiliation and criminal assault suffered by the petitioners at the hands of the police officials, arrayed as respondents No. 6 to 10. She also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Director General of Police, Punjab, to transfer the aforesaid respondents (No. 6 to 10) out of the district of Patiala so that they may not put pressure on them as also their witnesses. The petitioners also sought orders regarding their prearrest bail as they apprehended false implication by the guilty police officials.

The said writ petition came up for motion hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, headed by Hon''ble R.P. Sethi, J., (as his lordship then was) and notice was issued to the respondents No. 1 to 3, i.e. the State of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Administration in respect of the first prayer of the petition regarding the issuance of a writ of mandamus for posting female staff at the police stations. The petitioners were asked to move the appropriate court for redressal of their other grievance, mentioned in relief columns No. (ii) to (iv).

This writ petition came up eventually before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by Hon''ble Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. (as he then was) and was disposed of vide judgment dated August 5, 1997 with certain observations. The petitioner/Nirmal Kaur thereafter filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20509M of 1997 in this Court, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent State of Punjab and S.S.P., Patiala to give effect to the enquiry conducted by Sh. Balbir Singh Randhawa, the then Superintendent of Police (Crimes) Patiala, on the directions of the Director General of Police, Punjab.

Notice was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab, who put in appearance and reply to the petition was filed by the respondents.

This petition came up for hearing before Hon''ble Mrs. Justice (Dr.) Sarojnei Saksena on March 30, 1998 and was disposed of by the following order, which reads, inter alia, as under :

"Mr. Gill has submitted on record a copy of the enquiry report dated 17.6.1996 submitted by B.S. Randhawa respondent No. 3.

Heard. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to give effect to the enquiry conducted by B.S. Randhawa respondent No. 3 on the direction of the Director General of Police, Punjab.

After going through the enquiry report, it is evident that the petitioner has levelled allegations against Inspector Rajinder Paul Anand which, after holding an enquiry, were found true by respondent No. 3 B.S. Randhawa.

The State has filed this enquiry report. Hence, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to give effect to the enquiry report submitted by B.S. Randhawarespondent No. 2 within a month and proceed further against the defaulting police employeeInspector Rajinder Paul Anand. JUDGMENT be conveyed to the Director General of Police, Punjab.

Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.

30.3.1998

Sd/ Dr. Sarojnei Saksena,

Judge."

The present applicant Rajinder Paul Anand seeks the recall of this order on the ground that he was not impleaded as a party in the said miscellaneous case and the order has been passed affecting him in pursuance to the enquiry report.

Notice of this application was issued to Nirmal Kaur respondent. In her reply to this petition, she contended, inter alia, that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the civil writ petition did not pass order in the miscellaneous application. Apart from this, report of the enquiry conducted by Shri B.S. Randhawa, Superintendent of Police was not available and as such the same could not be placed on record of the writ petition aforesaid. The Division Bench also did not insist on the filing of the enquiry report by the State in the said writ petition. It was only in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20509M of 1997 in which the petitioner asked for a direction of this Court to give effect to the enquiry report, that the State filed its reply, annexing therewith copy of the enquiry report. Nirmal Kaur respondent also contended that she in the civil miscellaneous application filed alongwith the civil writ petition, had only prayed for issuance of a direction to the Director General of Police, Punjab, to place on record the enquiry report, whereas in the Criminal Miscellaneous case, specific prayer was made for direction to the State of Punjab to give effect to the enquiry report. She further averred that she was not aware of the circumstances in which the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) had marked the enquiry to the Senior Superintendent of Police. She categorically objected to the averments made in the application by Rajinder Pal Anand that the enquiry was manipulated one.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/Rajinder Pal Anand, learned DAG for the State and other officials respondents as also learned counsel for respondent/Nirmal Kaur. I have also perused the record of the Crl. Miscellaneous No. 20509/M of 1997 as well as the order passed therein, which is sought to be recalled in this application.

At the outset, it may be pointed out that the applicant/Rajinder Pal Anand, Inspector/SHO, police station Amloh, district Fatehgarh Sahib was not impleaded as a respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20509/M of 1997. The respondents arrayed in the said Criminal Miscellaneous case were :

State of Haryana (Punjab ?) through Home Secretary, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.

Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala.

Sh. Balbir Singh Randhawa, then Superintendent of Police (Crimes), Patiala.

In the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous case, Nirmal Kaur prayed for a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to give effect to the enquiry conducted by Shri Balbir Singh Randhawa, on the directions of the Director General of Punjab. The case came up for disposal before Hon''ble Mrs. Justice (Dr.) Sarojnei Saksena, who disposed of the petition by the order dated 30.3.1998, referred to above.

Since the applicant was not a party to this case, he could not seek recall or review of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It may also be mentioned that once the applicant was not impleaded as a respondent in the case, it could not be said that the case proceeded ex parte against him and he was denied an opportunity of hearing. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as under :

"362. Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

In view of the bar contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., the final order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be recalled or reviewed. It is not the case of the applicant that there is any clerical or arithmetical error in the order of this Court, which is sought to be reviewed. Resultantly, the application for recall of the order is not maintainable in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and the same is dismissed.