State of Punja vs NIDHI GUPTA

Order

02.12.2024 (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:-

Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG Assisted by ASI Mohinder S AAG Punjab er Singh. ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J ***** Present petition under er Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking issuan suance of directions to the official r FIR cial respondents to register an FIR under Section tion 302 IPC against the private re e respondent No.5 for murdering the daughter hter of the petitioner with the the active connivance of his sisters/relative atives, as the official respondents fa ts failed to register a case despite the complaint aints dated 26.07.2015, 26.09.2015 P1 015 and 01.10.2015 (Annexure P1 to P3) given to to them by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the pe e petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner ner before this Court is the mother ther of the deceased. Daughter of the petitioner ner namely Manjeet Kaur was marr married to respondent No.5 in the year 2012. It w . It was the second marriage of daug daughter of the petitioner and the first marriage iage of respondent No.5. Admitte ge, ittedly at the time of marriage, respondent N t No.5 took the daughter of the pe e e petitioner and her son from the SUNENA 2024.12.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document first marriage to the matrimonial home in village Ruknewala. One daughter was born out of the wedlock of the deceased daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No.5. It is submitted that during the entire marriage, the respondent No.5 and his family used to harass the daughter of the petitioner and also used to make allegations against her character thus causing her great mental harassment. Thereafter, on 26.07.2015, one relative of the petitioner namely Jasvir Singh received a telephonic call from mobile No.941781985 who informed Jasvir Singh that the daughter of the petitioner has died. As the petitioner and her husband resided in Uttarakhand they called their relative Pritam Singh to find out what had happened; while it took the petitioner and her husband 15 hours to reach the matrimonial home of their daughter at Ruknewala village. Thereafter, the petitioner and her husband informed the police against respondent No.5 and his relatives and gave a complaint dated 26.07.2015 (Annexure P1) through Jangir Singh, brother of the petitioner and uncle of deceased Manjeet Kaur for registration of case against respondent No.5 and others as they had every apprehension that daughter of the petitioner had been murdered by respondent No.5. However, when the police reached the spot, funeral of Manjeet Kaur had taken place. Yet police took no action against respondent No.5 and other accused. It is submitted that despite above facts, no FIR was registered against the respondent No.5. Thereafter the petitioner has made a written complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur on 26.09.2015 (Annexure P2) for registration of case but no action has been taken by him till date. The petitioner has also submitted a written complaint dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P3) before the SUNENA 2024.12.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Director of Investigation, Crimes Branch, Sector 9, Chandigarh, UT for issuance of directions to SHO Guru Sahai Police Station for registration of FIR against the five accused including respondent No.5. It is submitted that despite best efforts made by the petitioner, the police instead of taking any action and registering a case against the accused persons, have taken ashes of Manjeet Kaur to the Police Station which are still lying with the Police Station of Guru Sahai, District Ferozepur and have failed to register a case against the accused persons. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed and official respondents be directed to register an FIR under Section 302 IPC against the private respondent No.5 for murdering the daughter of the petitioner with the active connivance of his sisters/relatives, as the official respondents failed to register a case despite the complaints dated 26.07.2015, 26.09.2015 and 01.10.2015 (Annexure P1 to P3) given to them by the petitioner.

3. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and refers to status report dated 07.12.2018 filed by way of affidavit of Jasvir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, which is as under:- “1. That it is most respectfully submitted that as per record, the answering respondents No. 1 to 4 are not in receipt of any such representations/complaints dated 26.07.2015 (Annexure P-1),

26.09.2015 (Annexure P-2) and 01.10.2015 (Annexure P- 3) allegedly submitted by petitioner at any point of time. Even the petitioner never approached the answering respondents with any such claim as put forth in the present petition. The answering respondents had no notice or knowledge about the SUNENA 2024.12.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document death of Manjit Kaur daughter of petitioner as alleged. The answering respondents have come to know about the facts of the present case for the first time only after receiving the copy of the present petition from this Hon'ble Court.

2. That accordingly, the enquiry on the matter in hand has been got conducted through ASI Darshan Singh, P.S Guruharsahai in a fair and transparent manner. During enquiry, statements of Rajpreet Singh, Sarpanch, Balvir Singh son of Wazir Singh, Pappu Singh son of Achhi Singh (husband of deceased Manjit Kaur) and Jagtar Singh, Lambardar of the village Mohan Ke Hithar have also been recorded, who clearly got recorded in their statements that Smt. Manjit Kaur had died on 26.07.2015 due to Heart Attact when she was doing agriculture work in the field. Besides this, the Gram Panchayat of Village Mohan Ke Hithar has given a Panchayatnama in this regard, in which it has been clearly stated that Smt. Manjit Kaur had died on

26.07.2015 due to Heart Attact when she was sowing paddy crop in the fields and after sometime of the death Manjit Kaur, she was taken to the Basti and her cremation had taken place in the presence of the respectables of the village. It has also been stated in the said Panchayatnama by the respectable persons of the Gram Panchayat of the village that there is no truth in the present petition filed by the petitioner Sheelo Bai The true translated copy of the report of SHO.

3. That during enquiry, it has been fount that Manjit Kaur had died on 26.07.2015 due to Heart Attact, whereas the present has been filed by the petitioner only on 08.03.2018 i.e after a huge unexplained delay and there is no justification in this regard on the part of petitioner. Since no immediate intimation regarding the death of Manjit Kaur on 26.07.2015 was given to the answering respondents at appropriate time and cremation of Manjit Kaur had taken place in the presence of respectables SUNENA 2024.12.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of the village without got conducting her post mortem at the instance of petitioner and as such, now at such a belated stage, the petitioner is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present petition.” (Emphasis added) No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

5. the case file in great detail.

6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny or controvert the above submissions as made in the Status Report. Admittedly, even no rejoinder thereto has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel is unable to produce any receipt or receiving of the representations/applications dated 26.07.2015, 26.09.2015 and 01.10.2015 (Annexure P1 to P3), allegedly made by the petitioner to the official respondents. Learned counsel is unable to deny or explain the Panchayat Nama submitted by the Gram Panchayat of the village concerned affirming the fact that the daughter of the petitioner had died due to heart attack while sowing Paddy. Learned counsel is even unable to explain the delay of almost 3 years in filing of the present petition.

7. Furthermore, it is established position in law that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP & Ors.” 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392, it has been held as under:- “A. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 156 - Magistrate has very wide power under Section 156 - (1) Magistrate has power to direct police to register FIR. (2) Magistrate can monitor investigation. SUNENA 2024.12.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (3) Magistrate can order reinvestigation and re-opening of investigation on submission of final report by Police if investigation not done satisfactorily. (4) Magistrate, however, cannot direct C.B.I. investigate.” In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any shall also stand(s) disposed

9. of.

02.12.2024 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2024.12.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document