R.K.Chanan and ors. vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal J.

R. K. Chanan and others have moved this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of First Information Report No. 814 dated 28111990, u/ss 342 323, 326 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Gurgaon and the consequent proceedings and the investigation.

The impugned FIR was registered on the statement of Navita alias Namita d/o Naresh Chaudhry of Nainital (UP). The version given by her runs as under :

"Stated that from Nainital we had come to this place. I had reached Gurgaon on the 21st of July, 1990 along with my mother. We had come to Gurgaon to an Asthan which is behind Jai Talkies, to pay our respects. Guru Ji asked me and my Mummy to stay at their residence and we were kept there since July, 1990 up till today. When we expressed out desire to leave the place, Guru Ji used to tell that he would send us. In the meanwhile, I became indisposed. I do not know what had happened to me. When I become so ill, these people tied we and used to keep a watch so that I may not get out. I have no recollection as to what had happened between the 25th of August to the 30th of October. When I regained consciousness my Mummy told me that I was being kept there by tying and was giving beatings with a Sota. I requested Guru Ji that my eye sight be cured. Guru Ji told me that my eye sight would be cured, however, it was not cured. I do not know the name of Guru Ji. Perhaps his surname is Chanan. Burning cigarette was also touched with my body. I was kept separate from my mother. I was given injuries with a Sota on my foot which resulted in deep wounds which now are healed. I was so hypnotised that I could not know what was happening with me. About 9 days back, when we got ready to leave for Nainital we were stopped on some excuse. After that my Mummy became. indisposed. My Mummy is not now speaking. She was given beatings with Sotas. Now condition of my Mummy is such that she cannot recognise anyone and on account of tying, her hands have swollen, she also has a deep wound near her eye and appearance of her face has changed. She is not in a position to speak. When my mater uncle etc. had come to see us. They did not allow them to see us In spite of their insistence, they were not allowed to see us. My Mummy was tied near a window and when shouted her names in loud voice, then she named her brother and upon which both the brothers went inside, but still they were not allowed to see her. These people kept a watch on her throughout the night I cannot tellthe name. However, all the people called him Guru Ji. Myself and my mother were rescued by my maternal uncle, maternal grand father and maternal grand mother. My Mummy was being tortured with a Danda. My Mummy has got such deep wounds that a finger enters in the same : My Mummy was quite normal, but has now become abnormal. The residents of the Asthan have rung up my father, but my father refused to talk us on telephone. Because he is Shish of Guru Ji..."

It is averred in the petition that petitioner I is a dedicated Shiv Bhagat and is serving as Senior Soil Surveyer in the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Petitioner 1 has dedicated the ground floor of house No. 702 and the whole building of house No. 703 to the Ashram/Mandir where blessings are bestowed on suffering masses with various problems, including mental, physical and spiritual and that the said Ashram is a place of solace for lacs of devotees. This Ashram is being managed by Himgiri ( Charitable. Trust (Regd.). On the first Thursday, after every Amavas, a large number of devotees visit this Ashram and get the blessings of Guru Jr. A large number of followers also visit this Ashram on Guru Purnima and Mahashivratri. The Ashram is situated in thickly populated residential area of Gurgaon. Some persons who were jealous of the popularity of petitioner1 wanted to malign him and the Ashram, connived with the local Police and got a false case registered. The Ashram had been sealed by the police with the help of the other party. The allegations in the FIR are baseless and vague.

A bare reading of the statement of Navita show that she was brought by her mother to this Ashram and left in the company of petitioner I (described as Guru Ji) She was detained by the petitioners, though they did not give them assurance of sending them when approached by her mother. The statement is silent, who was the person who tied the complainant with a rope andkept a watch on her.

Normally, while dealing with a criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. this Court has to confine itself to the allegations made in the FIR, to find out if some criminal offence is disclosed or not but, in appropriate cases, the Court may take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances and reach a conclusion, on consideration of all the relevant material, whether on offence is disclosed or not. In support of my observations reliance is placed on West Bengal, & ors, v. Swapan Kumar Guha & others, AIR 1992 SC 949. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed therein that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be, put to jeopardy for nothing. Their Lordships further observed as under :

"65. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the FIR and the Court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the other hand. the Court on a consideration of the relevant material is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual."

The statement of Naresh Chaudhry father of Navita alias Namita was recorded before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. Therein he has stated as follows :

"In MayJune, 1990 I received a telephone call from the school that my daughter Navita Chaudhry terrifies her schoolmates in the hostel during night time and she misbehaves with her teachers. My daughter Navita has been studying in All Saints College, Nainital for the last 6 years and she is a student of 9th class School authorities had told me that I should take my daughter and she may be got checked from a doctor. I along with my wife Kanta Chaudhary went to the school and brought her to Nainital from there. In Nainital we got her checked from Dr. Gangola. He gave some medicine, but it had no effect. Movements of Navita, however, deteriorated. She attempted to jump and had broken watch etc. She also had put water upon her after closing the door and she had put vegetable upon her body after removing the same from Angithi and she then threw it away. She also threw utensils containing the vegetables at me and my wife, used to touch any material with her body. I started tying up Navita with a rope. Then in July, 1990, I brought Navita to Guru Ji, Chanan, residing at Gurgaon, whose full name I do not know. Guru Ji is God for me. I left my daughter Navita along with my wife in the Darbar of Guru Ji. Navita used to case herself in the clothes which she had worn. She used to smear the faecal matter upon her body. I used to enquire on telephone from Guru Ji about my daughter after 1520 days. When I came to Gurgaon on 1591990. I found Navita in a better condition. Guru Ji rang me up on 161190 asking me to take my daughter back, as she is all right. I reached Gurgaon on that very day. Again stated that Guru Ji rang me up on 15111990 and I reached Gurgaon on the next day, that is, on 16111990. There I saw that my wife Kanta was having the same trouble which my daughter Navita used to have. I requested Guru Ji with folded bands to cure Kanta also. He said he would cure her, I returned Then I received telephone call from Mata Ji on Monday dated 26 111990, informing me, that my inlaws want to take Navita and Kanta along with them. I did not agree and said that I would be coming to Gurgaon on 27111990. On 28th my child was to appear in an exam., but the child returned back crying that the exam. could not take place. Then again a telephone call came from Gurgaon which was from Banwari Lal and Bansi Lal. They urged upon me to take Kanta and Navita from there. I was at Nainital at that time. A telephone call came from Mata Ji, whose name I do not know, that Navita and Kanta had been taken away by Bansi Lal, Parkash Devi, Ram Parkash, Banwari Lal, Bishamber and 1015 other persons sons forcibly while beating them. I reached Gurgaon on 29111990 in the evening. I did not find my wife and daughter there. Both of them be got recovered and sent back with me."

The above statement of Naresh Chaudnry shows that Navita was mentally deranged, to some extent and Naresh Chaudhary had full faith in petitioner I that he would cure her and for that reason, he left her there. He had been having telephone calls with petitioner 1 and making inquiries about her condition. At one stage, he had found her to be in a better condiction. Probably Navita used to grow violent and it was in this situation that the persons, living at the Ashram had tied her with a rope to keep her under control. Petitioner 1 had been probably making efforts to cure Navita in which he had obtained much success.

Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State to the effect that petitioner 1 had no power to cure Navita of her ailment, is accepted as correct, it will still not make out any criminal offence against him. After considering all the relevant aspects of the case, it is held that no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. The Criminal Miscellaneous is allowed and the impugned FIR is hereby quashed and along there with, all the other proceedings shall also stand quashed.