Allowed

Ku. Rani Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2017WPCR/338/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an office assistant alleging sexual harassment and molestation by a colleague. The court directed the Inspector General of Police and the Station House Officer to inquire into the petitioner's complaint and take necessary action based on the findings.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents No. 2 and No. 5 to make an inquiry into the petitioner's complaint and act accordingly if any substance is found.

Ku. Rani Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Domestic Violence | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPCR No. 338 of 2017

¶4

Ku. Rani Soni D/o Late Balram Soni, Aged About 29 Years R/o Thanganpara, Near Shiv Mandir, Mayapur Nagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶8

Inspector General Of Police, Range Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Collector, Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Tangudu Shrihari S/o Shri T. Vishvanatham, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Accountant Office Of Divisional Manager, Sarguja Pariyojana Mandal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For the Petitioner : Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For the Respondents/ State : Shri Neeraj Sharma, DGA. Nos. 1 to 5.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

12.09.2017

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayer for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 5.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner (Ku. Rani Soni) used to work as office assistant on daily wages basis in Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ambikapur, where Respondent No.6 works as accountant in the same department. Respondent No.6 had on number of occasions abused the petitioner, using obscene language, taking photographs without her permission and by use of force outraging her modesty during the period, the petitioner used to work in the said office.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner made a complaint to the senior officer of the corporation on 22.07.2017, thereafter, she submitted complaint on 03.08.2017 to Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ambikapur, She has also made a written complaint in PS- Ambikapur on 23.07.2017 and never submitted complaint before the Collector, Sarguja, District- Sarguja (C.G) dated 24.07.2017 and lastly she has sent a complaint to Superintendent of Police and I.G. Range, Sarguja, on 12.08.2017, but no action has been taken on any of the complaints made by her.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made and submit that the petitioner has been charged for dereliction of duties and has been removed from the service and therefore she has made

¶24

¶25

complaint against the respondent No.6.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused all the document placed on record.

¶27

Keeping in view the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, it appears that petitioner has submitted a complaint to respondent No.5 (Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh) and thereafter, to respondent No.4 Superintendent of Police and Inspector General Of Police, Range Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

It is bounden duty of the police officer concerned to register FIR if the complaint so made clearly discloses some cognizable offence. Otherwise the concerned police officer has option to make an inquiry and find out whether any cognizable offence has been committed or not, and submit report accordingly.

¶29

Hence this petition is disposed off with direction that respondents No.2 and 5 shall make an inquiry on the complaint made by the petitioner and if any substance is found on the complaint made, he also directed to do the need full in accordance with law.

¶30

This petition is disposed off.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samat) Judge

¶33

Jamal

Ku. Rani Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Rani Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaki Bai And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant Kumar Vs The District Magistrate Baloda Bazzar

Suraj Kumar Sahu Vs Forest Conservator And Ors.

Jaijairam Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anjan Singh Chauhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shamim Vs State Of Chhattisgarh