The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the dismissal of a criminal complaint. The trial court found contradictions in the petitioner's evidence and findings regarding alleged incidents of harassment and assault, holding no ground for summoning the accused.
The revision petition fails and is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRR No. 229 of 2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 229 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 04, 2012
Rajwant Kaur
... Petitioner
Versus
R.S. Patial and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present revision petition has been filed against order dated 20.12.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana whereby Criminal Complaint No.168/1 of 08.12.1999 titled “Rajwant Kaur vs. R.S. Patial and others” has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the accused – respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 342, 354, 467, 506,120-B IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant-petitioner is posted as English Teacher in DAV School, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. She had been serving the institution to the best of her ability, dedication, having excellent record. Accused- respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Principal and Co-ordinator respectively of the said school.
CRR No. 229 of 2001
2
In October 1999, the school authorities had handed over the answer sheets for checking which were duly submitted by the complainantpetitioner after evaluating/checking of the intelligence of the students along with mark sheets. When the answer sheets were distributed to the students, the complainant-petitioner came to know that some one had made alterations in the marks of various students. This fact was brought to the notice of accused-respondent no.1 by the complainant-petitioner. Accused-respondent No.1 called the complainant-petitioner in his office in the presence of accusedrespondent No.2 and admitted having made alternations and told the complainant-petitioner not to expose the irregularities committed. It was further mentioned in the complaint that parents of the students are giving heavy donations to the school. The complainant-petitioner stated that alteration of marks will affect the career of the students and they will become careless, on which the accused felt offended and kept on harassing the complainant-petitioner unnecessarily and pressurized the complainant to resign from service. On 19.11.1999, the accused did not allow the complainant to join the classes and she kept waiting in the reception room. On 26.11.1999 when the complainant-petitioner went to school, accused-respondent no.1 summoned the complainant in his office and threatened and asked the petitioner/complainant to tender the resignation to which she refused. On the refusal of the complainant, the accused ordered the complainant to leave the office. After some time, when the complainant was waiting in the reception room, accused-respondent No.1 came there and literally pulled the shirt of the complainant, tore it away, dragged her few feet. At this, the complainant raised hue and
CRR No. 229 of 2001
3
cry to save her honour on which the accused-respondent no.1 also exhorted the other employees to insult the complainant. About 25/30 parents of the students were also present there, who had witnessed the incident, one of them was Mr. J.P.Passi, who was in school premises to enquire about the admission of his grandson. Mr. J.P.Passi intervened along with other parents of the students and saved the situation from taking ugly turn. In the evening at 3.30 p.m., the complainant returned to her home and narrated whole story to her mother-in-law. The complainant-petitioner also wrote a complaint to the SHO, P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. The complainant informed about the incident to her husband, who is an Advocate by profession, at about 8.30 p.m. , who had rushed to Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. The police authorities only gave false assurance and did not take any action. On 27.11.1999, the accused called the complainant and her husband in the school premises on assurance that they felt sorry with a purpose to get matter patched up amicably. At that time 3-4 persons were sitting in the office of accused-respondent No1, who were introduced as members of the management of the school. However, the accused told the complainant and her husband in harsh tone that children of the high ups and police officials are studying in the school, the complainant would not be able to take action on the complaint of the complainant. Accused – respondent no.1 in the presence of the husband of the complainant torn the shirt and told her to do whatever she wanted and called the school employees who caught hold of the husband of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband sensing danger, rushed to P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and
CRR No. 229 of 2001
4
informed the incident, but the police did not take any action.
The complainant/petitioner examined herself as PW1, Sh. J.P. Passi as PW2 and Devinder Singh, Advocate, husband of the complainant as PW3. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.12.2012. Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the complainantpetitioner, as well as, the learned State counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is a complete mis-reading and non-reading of the record, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
There is categorical evidence that accused-respondent No.1 Principal had torn the shirt of the complainant and had pulled her dupatta. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that there are contradictions in the evidence. The complainant while appearing as PW1 has stated that accused assaulted her and pulled dupatta from her shoulder in the presence of her husband. The complainant in her statement recorded earlier under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated that the Principalrespondent No.1 had put his hand on her shoulder and threatened them to do whatsoever they could do. This clearly shows that in the statement recorded on 15.12.1999, the complainant neither stated regarding her shirt being torn by the accused nor she has stated regarding her duppata having been pulled by the accused. Rather, the complainant-petitioner has given three versions. PW2 – Mr. J.P. Passi has also neither deposed that the accused-respondent no.1 had torn the shirt of the complainant nor has stated that he saw the
CRR No. 229 of 2001 5
complainant when she was being man-handled by accusedrespondent No.1. The Court has come to the conclusion that the presence of PW2 – Mr. J.P. Passi is not proved and according to the story put up by the petitioner, her shirt was again torn on 27.11.1999 which is doubtful.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to examine the other independent witnesses in spite of the fact that the complainant-petitioner stated in her complaint that 25-30 parents of the students were there in the school premises. It is beyond imagination that such an act would have been committed by the Principal in the presence of so many parents and children and specifically in the presence of the husband of the complainant.
In view of the finding of fact recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, after appreciation of evidence on record, no ground is made out to summon the accused-respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
This court has specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, but the learned counsel has failed to point out the same.
In view of the above, present revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
July 04, 2012 vkd
[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the Impugned Order dismissing the criminal complaint.
Whether to summon the accused based on the alleged harassment and assault.
Whether the findings of fact regarding contradictions in evidence justify dismissal.
Rajwant Kaur
R.S. Patial
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
