Delhi High Court
Salma vs State on 31 March, 2016
Author: S. P. Garg
$-16 to 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 31st MARCH, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 2702/2015
SALMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2705/2015
GULAB NABI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2706/2015
SARIF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2707/2015
NAFEES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
W.P.(Crl.) 2702/2015 & connected petitions. Page 1 of 7
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2715/2015
NADEEM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
+ W.P.(CRL) 602/2016
MOHD YAMIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
AND
+ W.P.(CRL) 603/2016
MOHD YUSUF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
W.P.(Crl.) 2702/2015 & connected petitions. Page 2 of 7
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner - Salma in W.P.(Crl.) 2702/2015 seeks
directions to the respondent - State to grant her adequate and meaningful
police protection. It is averred that various death threats have been
extended to her by Mehrunisa and 'goonda elements' of her husband Issak
Ansari @ Paradhan due to which she remains in constant fear to her life
and liberty. More than thirty complaints have been lodged at PS Karawal
Nagar. FIR No.674/2014 under Sections 323/342/354B/506/392/34 IPC
dated 05.08.2014 was lodged against Issak Ansari @ Paradhan by her.
Showing no fear of law and in order to get out of the aforesaid FIR, he
started extending threats to her. Despite her lodging complaints on
16.08.2014, 19.08.2014, 20.08.2014, 21.08.2014, 25.08.2014 and
27.08.2014 against Issak Ansari @ Paradhan, no action was taken by the
police or the concerned Court. On 27.08.2014, she was granted police
protection by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. On 27.08.2014, she was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by
Issak Ansari @ Paradhan and FIR No.747/2014 dated 28.08.2014 under
Sections 365/376/377/328/342/380/34 IPC was registered. On
16.10.2014, Issak Ansari @ Paradhan and his wife dragged her at 06.15
a.m. and attempted to kill her by strangulating her neck. FIR
No.940/2014 under Sections 341/323/506/34 IPC was registered. It is
further averred that Issak's wife Mehrunisa and his daughter have lodged
a false complaint i.e. FIR No.585/2015 dated 13.09.2015 under Sections
504/509/506 IPC against her family members who are on bail. It is
further claimed that the Counsel appearing in case No.674/2014 opted to
withdraw his vakalatnama due to threats.
3. Subsequently, W.P.(Crl.) 2706/2015, W.P.(Crl.) 2707/2015,
W.P.(Crl.) 2715/2015 and W.P.(Crl.) 2705/2015 on similar grounds and
were filed by Sarif, Nafees, Nadeem and Gulab Nabi, respectively to seek
similar directions. In February, 2016, W.P.(Crl.) 602/2016 and W.P.(Crl.)
603/2016 were filed by Mohd.Yamin and Mohd.Yusuf for similar relief.
Issak Paradhan, his wife Mehrunisa and daughter - 'X' (changed name)
were impleaded as respondents No.2 to 4 therein.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the police files. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that
the petitioners have constant threat to their life and liberty at the hands of
Issak Ansari @ Paradhan and his associates. Despite filing more than
thirty complaints to the police to initiate action against them, no police
protection was made available. They have been implicated and arrested in
false complaints lodged by them. Issak Ansari @ Paradhan's daughter -
'X' has wrongly claimed herself to be 'minor' though she is 23 years old.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there is no real threat to the
life and liberty of the petitioners. Both the parties live in the same
vicinity; regularly pick up quarrel and lodge complaints against each
other. There are cases and cross-cases registered against both the parties
at PS Karawal Nagar.
5. In the FIR No.674/2014 registered under Sections 323/354
etc. on 05.08.2014 on Salma's complaint against Issak Pradhan, she did
not record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Two accused arrested
in the said FIR were released on bail by the Trial Court. Subsequently, on
Salma's application for cancellation of bail, Issak Ansari's bail was
cancelled vide order dated 22.12.2014; he (Issak) was already in judicial
custody in FIR No.747/2014 under Sections 376/377 IPC etc. On
05.01.2015, he was rearrested and continues to be so. Charge-sheet has
already been filed in the said case. Second FIR No.747/2014 was lodged
on Salma's complaint on 28.08.2014 under Sections 365/376/377 IPC etc.
In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she impleaded only Issak Paradhan and
exonerated other three suspects named in the FIR. Charge-sheet has been
filed only against Issak Ansari who is in custody. Another FIR
No.940/2014 was registered on Salma's complaint under Sections
341/323/506/34 IPC on 16.10.2014 against Issak Paradhan and his wife
Mehrunisa. It is relevant to note that cross-case vide FIR No.941/2014
under Sections 341/323/34 IPC was also registered on Issak Ansari's
complaint on 16.10.2014 itself against Yusuf, Saleem, Nadeem, Yamin,
Sarif and Nafees etc. Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed in both
said cases. Another FIR No.585/2014 was registered on Mehrunisa's
complaint against the petitioners - Yamin and Yusuf. The victim 'X'
(changed name) Issak's daughter aged 15 years in her 164 Cr.P.C.
statement implicated some of the petitioners and Section 12 POCSO Act
was added.
6. Apparently, both the parties have lodged complaints against
each other and aforesaid FIRs have been come into existence against them
on various dates. In the Petitions, the petitioners did not specifically name
Issak's associates who had allegedly attempted to threaten them. No other
specific incident has been disclosed in the writ petitions to infer that there
was real apprehension to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands
of Issak Paradhan, his wife and daughter. Admittedly, A-1 is already
running in custody since long. Both the parties are facing criminal
proceedings in the above cases before the Courts below and final verdicts
are yet to come. Allegations in all the petitions instituted on different
dates are similar in nature. Both the parties live in the same vicinity. Due
to certain alleged property disputes with Umardin with who the matter has
been settled afterwards, they indulge in quarrels and lodge complaints
against each other. Issak's wife and minor daughter 'X' can't be a threat
to the petitioners. Registration of so many cases reflects that as and when
police machinery is set in motion, the matter is duly investigated.
Admittedly, petitioner Salma was given police protection by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I find no merit in the writ petitions to issue any directions to
respondent State. The petitioners will be at liberty to move the Court
concerned for cancellation of bail in case of imminent - real threat; they
will be at liberty to lodge complaint against specific individual(s) for
commission of any such cognizable offence and the police on receipt of
any such complaint shall proceed as per law to investigate it.
7. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 31, 2016 / tr
