Court on its own motion v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr.Ravinder Malik, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which need a necessary mention for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on

20.2.2009, in the wake of patrolling, the police of Police Station Kotwali Nabha arrested M/s Chandni daughter of Ashok Kumar and Tejinder Singh son of Surinder Singh (Patwari) under sections 41 (2) and 109 Cr.PC. During the course of interrogation by SI/SHO Ajaib Singh, Chandni expressed her desire for urinating, went to the cabin attached with the office and attempted to commit suicide by tying her chunni with the fan there. The SHO with the help of constables Kamlesh Rani and Sukhbir Kaur got her admitted in Amar Hospital, Patiala for treatment. A criminal case was registered against her, vide FIR No.11 dated 20.2.2009 under section 309 IPC in this regard. She remained under treatment of doctors of Amar Hospital and under the care of her parents. Ultimately, she was discharged from the hospital on 28.3.2009.

2. After the discharge from the hospital, Chandni started residing with CRM No.M-5555 of 2010 2 her parents. Ultimately, on 30.6.2009 she suddenly fell ill and died in her house. She was cremated by her parents on 1.7.2009. Her last rites and ceremonies were performed on 12.7.2009. No body raised any suspicion in this regard. One Hardev Singh Galwatti, claiming himself to be a Journalist, made a complaint on

22.2.2010 to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, inter-alia raising certain doubts with regard to the commission of suicide by Chandni. The complaint was taken on judicial side and was treated as CRM No.M-5555 of 2010. That is how, I am seized of the matter.

3. The respondents contested the claim of the complainant, filed the affidavit of Arshdeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nabha, inter-alia stoutly denying all the allegations contained in the complaint and prayed for its dismissal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

5. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that one Tejinder Singh Patwari and Ms.Chandni were arrested by the police on 20.2.2009 under sections 41(2) and 109 Cr.PC. During the course of interrogation, Chandni wanted to ease and SHO allowed her and she went to nearby cabin on the pretext of urinating and attempted to commit suicide. The SHO with the help of lady constables got her admitted in Amar Hospital, Patiala. A criminal case was registered against her in the manner indicated here-in-above. The matter was got enquired into by the SDM Nabha. He recorded the statements of relevant witnesses of the occurrence and submitted his report dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure R1/T), the operative part of which is as under:- “On perusal of the statements, it reveals that on

20.2.2009 SHO arrested Chandni and Tejinder Pal Singh in suspicious condition and mukami police was registered a case U/ss 41(2) and 109 Cr.PC. During CRM No.M-5555 of 2010 3 investigation, Chandni wanted to go for urinating and SHO allowed her and she attempted suicide by tying her chunni with fan there. The police officers to save her got her admitted in Amar Hospital, Patiala, where SHO tried to save the life of Chandni is concerned at the same time and case FIR No.11 dated 20.11.2009 under Section 309 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, stands registered against her. When she attempted suicide she was in police custody and it was duty of police to save the life and liberty was duty of the police. It is established that during investigation, it is established that Mrs. Kamlesh Rani was present, where Chandni was being interrogated and asked for urinating then investigation officer should have sent Mrs. Kamlesh Rani in whose presence investigation was going on, so that Chandni could not have been successful in the incident. Although SHO made all out efforts to save the life of Chandni and has also initiated legal action, but if he would have been vigilant in performing his duty, then the occurrence would not have taken place.”

6. As is evident from the record that Chandni remained under the treatment of doctors of Amar Hospital, Patiala with effect from 20.2.2009 and she was discharged on 28.3.2009 under the care and protection of her parents. Having discharged from the hospital, she resided with her parents and died in her house on

30.6.2009. She was cremated by her parents on 1.7.2009. Her last rites and ceremonies were performed on 12.7.2009. It is apparent from the record that on

22.2.2010 i.e. about one year after the occurrence, the Journalist filed the complaint against the SHO in order to settle his own score without any material on record. It is reiterated that even the parents of Chandni did not raise any accusing finger in this regard against any body till today.

7. The contention of learned amicus curiae that even the statement of Journalist was not recorded, which creates a doubt on the police proceedings, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. It is no body's case that the CRM No.M-5555 of 2010 4 Journalist was present at any point of time or witnessed the incident. The SDM and higher police officers have already enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that Chandni attempted to commit suicide in order to save the honour of the family as she was arrested with Tejinder Singh (Patwari) under sections 41 (2) and 109 Cr.PC in the police station in the manner described here-in-above. SHO alongwith lady constables arranged for adequate medical treatment. She was discharged from the hospital on 28.3.2009 and ultimately died on 30.6.2009. Learned amicus curiae did not point out any piece of evidence even to suggest remotely that the concerned police was responsible in any manner in this relevant connection. To my mind, in the absence of any cogent material, no action is warranted on the mere wish of the complainant-Journalist.

8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as no cogent material is available on the record to warrant any action against the respondents, therefore, the proceedings are hereby dropped in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar)

27.9.2010 AS Judge