Suman Gupta and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to protect their life and liberty and to ensure that they are not harassed by respondents No.6 to 11 with a further prayer to take action against respondents No.5 to 11 for offences committed by them on the basis of their complaint dated 2.8.2011 (Annexure P-3) with further prayer for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to appoint a Special Investigation Officer and hold an inquiry against respondent No.5 for his act and conduct. Noticing the contentions raised, this Court passed the following order on 7.9.2011:

Contends that in the alleged occurrence, multiple injuries were suffered by petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to MLR (Annexure P-2) in this regard. According to counsel, a complaint was made to the police pursuant to which DDR entry was made. In the said case, allegations are against respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.5 is Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, police station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel submits that he (respondent No.5) himself is enquiring into the matter.

Notice of motion for 28.11.2011.

Order dated 21.5.2012 of this Court, may also be noticed, which reads thus:

Reply, filed on behalf of Ashwani Kumar, ASI, P.S. Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana in court today, is taken on record.

List on 28.05.2012.

Record of CRM No.M-12092 of 2012 and CRM No.M-35936 of 2011 be attached with this case.

To be shown in the urgent list.

All the petitioners be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that Hemant Gutpa is confined in Jail, Suman Gupta is confined to bed and Trilok Gupta is mentally weak. However, Rattan Lal Gupta is present in Court.

Rattan Lal Gupta shall be present in Court on the next date of hearing.

Let an affidavit be also filed how the petition has been filed on behalf of Trilok Gupta, who is stated to be mentally weak.

Affidavit of petitioner No.2 has been filed in Court and the same is taken on record.

Upon notice, respondents had filed reply by way of affidavits of Swapam Sharma, IPS, ACP (North), District Ludhiana and Ashwani Kumar, ASI, Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. Preliminary submissions made in the affidavit filed on behalf of Swapam Sharma, IPS, ACP (North), District Ludhiana read thus:

That FIR No.150 dated 08/08/2011 u/s 406/ 498A/323/506 IPC was registered at Police Station Tabri district Ludhiana at the instance of Neetu Gupta complainant/ respondent no.7. Later on, both the complainant / respondent no.7 Neetu Gupta, the petitioners and other co-accused during the investigation with the intervention of the respectables effected a compromise. The petitioners have filed CRM No.M-35936 of 2011 in this Hon''ble Court for quashing of FIR on the basis of said compromise. The petition was listed on 03/02/2012 before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta and on the said date the Hon''ble Court directed that the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings before the trial court be quashed. The true typed copy of the same is hereby attached as annexure ''R1''. On the basis of said order of the Hon''ble Court the above mentioned case was ordered to be cancelled. The cancellation report is still under process. Hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Preliminary submissions made in the affidavit filed on behalf of Ashwani Kumar, ASI, Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana may also be perused, which reads thus:

That the respondent no.5 was the Investigating Officer of FIR No.150 dated 08/08/2011 u/s 406/498A/ 323/506 IPC which was registered at Police Station Salem Tabri district Ludhiana. During the investigation the petitioner No.1 on 31.07.2011 did not got recorded her statement to answering deponent and in this regard the answering deponent got recorded DDR No.32 dated 31.07.2011 at PS Salem Tabri Ludhiana. Thereafter, on 09.08.2011 the petitioner No.1 got recorded in her statement to answering deponent and from the allegations mentioned in the statement no cognizable offence was made out and one DDR No.33 dated 09.08.2011 was also recorded at PS Salem Tabri Ludhiana in this regard. The answering respondent did not ever connive with the respondents No.6 to 11 nor he put any kind of pressure upon the petitioners to enter into any compromise with respondents No.6 to 11. The allegations leveled against the answering deponent are absolutely wrong, false, and baseless, hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it emerges out that the petitioners had compromised with the respondents and thus, FIR No.150 dated 08/08/2011 u/s 406/ 498A/323/506 IPC registered at Police Station Tabri district Ludhiana against them was quashed vide judgment of this Court dated 3.2.2012.

Moreover, the petitioners have also filed a petition u/s 156(3) CrPC for taking action against respondent No.5 and others on 8.8.2011. However, inspite of pendency of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner continued pursuing this petition before this Court without disclosing the said fact. Thus, continuation of the present petition before this Court is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed, as such. Ordered accordingly.