Delhi High Court
Sapna & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 19 November, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 19th November, 2010
+W.P. (Crl.) 1500/2010
%
19.11.2010
Sapna & Anr. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Hussain, Advocate
Versus
State & Anr. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel with Mr. Mohit Mudgil,
Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORAL
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction against the
respondents to transfer of investigation to CBI and directions to initiate action
against police officials mentioned as respondents for dereliction of duty and
abuse of their authority as well as initiating action against the respondents for
not discharging their duties against respondents no. 4 to 6.
Page 1 of 3
2. In the petition allegations were made that police officials initially
arrested two persons namely Shri Niranjan Singh and Smt. Rukmani Devi and
after taking bribe from them of Rs.5.5 lac, let them off. Thus they committed
dereliction of duty, respondents no. 3 in connivance with respondents no. 4
and 5 and respondent no.2 did not take any action against them therefore
directions should be issued against him also for action.
3. The case relates to a complaint filed by father of Ms. Sapna regarding
her kidnapping and rape. Father of Ms. Sapna made allegations that Ms.
Sapna was a mentally challenged woman and she had been kidnapped and
raped by Manish and other persons named by him had connived with Manish.
After filing of present petition, the matter was directed to be transferred to SIT,
Crime Branch and investigation was done by Crime Branch and a report has
been filed. The report shows that Ms. Sapna was aged 26 years. She was
related to Manish, since she was sister in law of Manish's brother Ranjit. She
was a widow and had two minor children who were living with family of her
late husband. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded before
learned MM at the District Courts, Dwarka and in her statement she admitted
that she had accompanied Manish out of her own free will. However,
thereafter she did make allegations that Manish raped her. The investigation
conducted by the police shows that Manish and Sapna stayed together in
various hotels in Rajasthan, Ajmer. A screening of hotels record was
conducted by the police and this screening showed that only two of them had
stayed together in all the hotel rooms. No evidence was there to suggest the
presence of any other family member named by the complainant or father of
Page 2 of 3
Sapna, who might have stayed with them. They had also stayed at other
hotels in Ahmedbad and the local police had physically checked them while
they were staying in the hotel room. There was nothing on record to suggest
that Sapna was ever kidnapped or raped, neither had she made a complaint
to the local police while police checked the hotel rooms. Accused Manish was
arrested by the police in this case and is in judicial custody. It is submitted that
there was no offence made out against other persons, therefore, they were
not arrested. The investigation shall be completed at the earliest and a challan
shall be filed.
4. I am satisfied that the investigation was being done in a right and fair
manner and there was no necessity of transferring the investigation. I also
consider that no action was warranted against police officials named by the
petitioner because they were not working as per the whims of the petitioner.
5. In view of above facts and circumstances, I find no force in this petition.
The petition is hereby dismissed.
November 19, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
rd
