father, S.I. Charan Dass had recorded her statement but again, did not lodge the FIR on account of the fact that it was varying with the first statement. That Kulwant Singh thereafter had to approach the Deputy Commissioner for recording of the statement of the deceased-Harminder Kaur and filed an application Ex.PE before him on 08.11.1992 wherein, he expressed his anguish that the girl had been admitted in the private nursing home and her signatures had been obtained and that the police was reluctant to record her statement and was acting partially and she may not survive. The Deputy Commissioner, on the said application, directed that appropriate action be taken by the SDM. In terms of the said directions, the SDM had recorded the statement after taking opinion of the doctor and then further directed that necessary action be taken and the case be registered, which would be clear from Ex.PA/3. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the District Attorney, who also opined that prima facie case is made out under Sections 302, 304-B, 193, 120B, 34 IPC but no action was taken and it was only when Harminder Kaur expired on 12.11.1992, the FIR was lodged on 02.12.1992. These factors would go on to show that the complainant, who was not belonging to Amritsar was making all attempts to bring to the notice of the authorities the incident, was not being given hearing and was being made to run from pillar to post. It is only on account of death of Harminder Kaur, the authorities thereafter lodged the FIR, that also belatedly in spite of the fact that the inquest proceedings had been conducted on 12.11.1992, which would be clear from the statement of ASI Sukhwinder Singh (PW-10).
