Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 31 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-23537-2020
Date of decision: 31.08.2021
Ravi Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
(2) CRM-M-23805-2020
Date of decision: 31.08.2021
Sahab Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Argued by: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate
for the petitioner in
CRM-M-23537-2020.
Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate
for the petitioner
in CRM-M-23805-2020.
Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for respondent No.1-State of Haryana in both cases.
Mr. P.S. Walia, Asstt. A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.2-State of Punjab
in CRM-M-23537-2020.
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.3-U.T., Chandigarh
in CRM-M-23537-2020.
None for the complainant.
****
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J.
(The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.)
1. Petitioner-Ravi Kumar has filed CRM-M-23537-2020 and
petitioner-Sahab Ram has filed CRM-M-23805-2020 under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") for
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.126 dated 01.06.2018 registered
1 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -2-
CRM-M-23805-2020
under Sections 285 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
"the IPC") and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station
Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad to which Sections 148, 149, 364, 452,
302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act,
1959 were added and from which Section 365 of the IPC was deleted
later on.
2. The above said FIR was registered on statement of
complainant Rai Singh who alleged that his nephew Dharambir, who
used to reside with him, brought a girl named Sunita with him about 2/3
days back and introduced her as his wife. On 01.06.2018 at about 02:00
P.M. 15/16 persons came in two vehicles and one of them fired gun
shot in the air and they abducted his nephew Dharambir and his wife
and took them away in their vehicles. He could identify them if brought
before him. Sunita was recovered on 02.06.2018 and her statement was
got recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Dead body of Dharambir
was recovered from Sidhmukh Canal in the area of Bhadra, Rajasthan
on 03.06.2018. Supplementary statement of complainant Rai Singh was
recorded on 04.06.2018. On investigation 15 persons were stated to be
involved in the occurrence. Six of them namely Dharampal @ Jagar,
Dalbir, Sahab Ram (the petitioner in CRM-M-23805-2020), Sarjit, Siri
Ram and Ravi (the petitioner in CRM-M-23537-2020) were arrested
and challan was presented against them on 01.09.2018.
3. The first two petitions filed by petitioner-Ravi Kumar
before this Court for grant of regular bail were dismissed as withdrawn
vide orders dated 22.04.2019 and 27.02.2020 respectively and the first
2 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -3-
CRM-M-23805-2020
two petitions filed by petitioner-Sahab Ram before this Court for grant
of regular bail were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated
07.02.2019 and 27.02.2020 respectively.
4. The present (third) petition filed by petitioner-Ravi Kumar
has been opposed by the respondent-State in terms of reply filed by way
of affidavit of Satender Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Traffic, Fatehabad. No reply has been filed to (third) petition filed by
petitioner-Sahab Ram.
5. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsel for
the petitioners, learned State Counsels for the States of Punjab and
Haryana and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh
have gone through the relevant record.
6. Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned Counsel for petitioner-Ravi
Kumar has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the case. As per disclosure statements allegedly made by co-accused,
Dalbir, Sunder, Balwant, Neki Ram, Sher Singh and Sahab Ram are
alleged to have murdered Dharambir. Co-accused Dalbir and Sunder
have been granted bail. Even as per the prosecution version the
petitioner, who was present at the time of alleged abduction of Sunita
and Dharambir, left before and was not present at the time of murder of
Dharambir. The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner were merely
dismissed as withdrawn and the present petition is maintainable in view
of the change of circumstances. Substantial number of prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined in the case. The trial is likely to take
long time due to number of prosecution witnesses to be examined and
3 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -4-
CRM-M-23805-2020
restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19. Co-
accused Shri Ram, Sarjeet @ Rawan, Bhanwar Singh, Vinod, Vikram,
Ved Parkash, Biru Ram, Dalbeer, Sundar Lal and Dharampal @
Jagar have been granted regular bail. In view of parity with them the
petitioner may also be granted regular bail and interim regular bail
granted to him may be confirmed.
7. Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, learned Counsel for petitioner-Sahab
Ram has submitted that petitioner-Sahab Ram has been falsely
implicated in the case. As per the prosecution version, petitioner-Sahab
Ram along with his co-accused abducted and murdered Dharambir but
during test identification parade, petitioner Sahab Ram was not
identified by complainant Rai Singh. All the co-accused except co
accused Ravi Kumar arrested in the case before filing of the petition by
the petitioner have been granted bail. Substantial number of prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined in the case. The trial is likely to take
long time due to number of the prosecution witnesses to be examined as
well as the restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of
Covid-19. In view of parity with co-accused Shri Ram, Sarjeet @
Rawan, Bhanwar Singh, Vinod, Vikram, Ved Parkash, Biru Ram,
Dalbeer, Sundar Lal and Dharampal @ Jagar who have been granted
regular bail, the petitioner may be granted regular bail and interim
regular bail granted to him may be made absolute.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Addl. A.G.,
Haryana has submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners
are very serious. The petitioners actively participated in murder of
4 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -5-
CRM-M-23805-2020
Dharambir and thereby committed heinous offences. In view of the
nature of accusation, gravity of offences, role attributed to the
petitioners and evidence against them, the petitioners do not deserve
grant of regular bail and the petition may be dismissed.
9. In the present case a perusal of the reply dated 30.09.2020
filed by Satender Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Traffic, Fatehabad shows that
(i) Co-accused Shri Ram has been granted concession
of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2018.
(ii) Co-accused named Sarjeet @ Rawan has been
granted the concession of regular bail by Trial Court vide
order dated 21.12.2018.
(iii) Co-accused Bhanwar Singh was released on bail by
Trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2019.
(iv) Co-accused named Vinod has also been released on
bail by Trial Court vide order dated 19.03.2019.
(v) Co-accused Vikram has also been granted the
concession of regular bail vide order dated 18.03.2019.
(vi) Co-accused Ved Parkash has also been granted the
concession of regular bail vide order dated 09.07.2019.
(vii) Co-accused Biru Ram has been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
19.11.2019.
(viii) Co-accused Dalbeer has been granted the concession
of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2020.
(ix) Co-accused Sundar Lal has been granted concession
of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2020.
(x) Co-accused Dharampal @ Jagar has been granted
concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
18.08.2020.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
5 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -6-
CRM-M-23805-2020
of accusation and evidence against the petitioners, role attributed to
them, period of their custody, parity with above said other co-accused
who have been granted regular bail, the fact that the trial is likely to
take time due to number of prosecution witnesses to be examined and
due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19,
but without commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to
extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.
11. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and interim
regular bail granted to the petitioners is made absolute and the
petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on the bail bonds
already furnished by them.
12. Before parting with this case it may be observed that this
Court, while noticing that the case involved allegations of honour
killing of Dharambir by persons whose honour was allegedly subjected
to disgrace by the deceased by performing marriage with their relative
Sunita Rani (daughter of Sita Ram), observed in its order dated
26.10.2020 as under:
"Although this matter has come up before this Court
for hearing on petition filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail by petitioner-Ravi
Kumar, one of the accused charge-sheeted by the police,
limited to the question of grant of regular bail to the
petitioner, yet the facts and circumstances of the case also
call for interference by the Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of
process as well as for securing the ends of justice."
13. The relevant judgments condemning violence against inter
caste/inter religion marriages and honour killings and directions already
issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court may be referred to first
6 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -7-
CRM-M-23805-2020
before adverting to the disturbing features of the case and adumbrating
upon the directions required to be issued for preventing abuse of
process and securing ends of justice as referred to above.
14. Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2006) 5 SCC
475 was one of the initial cases which came up before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court raising the issue of the right of a person to marry a
person of his own choice irrespective of caste or religion. In the said
case petitioner solemnized her marriage, with her own free will, with a
person of another caste. The said marriage was strongly opposed by her
brothers and they also committed violence upon her and her husband
and also falsely implicated them. Condemning the same, Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and
the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing
the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the
challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste
marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will
result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing
news are coming from several parts of the country that
young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage,
are threatened with violence, or violence is actually
committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence
or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who
commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and
democratic country, and once a person becomes a major
he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents
of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that
they can cut off social relations with the son or the
daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or
instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person
who undergoes such inter-caste or interreligious
marriage. We, therefore, direct that the
administration/police authorities throughout the country
will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
undergoes inter-caste or interreligious marriage with a
woman or man who is a major, the couple are not
harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of
7 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -8-
CRM-M-23805-2020
violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses
or commits acts of violence either himself or at his
instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such persons and further
stern action is taken against such persons as provided by
law.
18. We sometimes hear of 'honour' killings of such
persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage of their own free will. There is nothing
honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing
but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by
brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh
punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts
of barbarism. "
15. In Bhagwan Dass vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (SC): 2011 (2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 920, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"9. Many people feel that they are dishonoured by
the behaviour of the young man/woman, who is related to
them or belonging to their caste because he/she is
marrying against their wish or having an affair with
someone, and hence they take the law into their own hands
and kill or physically assault such person or commit some
other atrocities on them. We have held in Lata Singh Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr., 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 870 :
2006(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 738 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 670 :
(2006)5 SCC 475, that this is wholly illegal. If someone is
not happy with the behaviour of his daughter or other
person, who is his relation or of his caste, the maximum he
can do is to cut off social relations with her/him, but he
cannot take the law into his own hands by committing
violence or giving threats of violence."
16. In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as
under:-
"22. Before parting with this case we would like to state
that 'honour' killings have become commonplace in many
parts of the country, particularly in Haryana, western
U.P., and Rajasthan. Often young couples who fall in love
have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection
homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have
held in Lata Singh's case (supra) that there is nothing
'honourable' in 'honour' killings, and they are nothing but
barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with
feudal minds.
23. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason,
8 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -9-
CRM-M-23805-2020
come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving
death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric,
feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is
necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized
behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate
'honour' killings should know that the gallows await
them."
17. In Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 7
SCC 192, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed taking of preventing,
remedial and punitive measures to prevent honour killings and diktats
of khap panchayats. The relevant paragraph of its judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"53. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel being assisted by Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, has filed
certain suggestions for issuing guidelines. The Union of
India has also given certain suggestions to be taken into
account till the legislation is made. To meet the challenges
of the agonising effect of honour crime, we think that there
has to be preventive, remedial and punitive measures and,
accordingly, we state the broad contours and the
modalities with liberty to the executive and the police
administration of the concerned States to add further
measures to evolve a robust mechanism for the stated
purposes.
I. Preventive Steps:-
(a) The State Governments should forthwith identify
Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances
of honour killing or assembly of Khap Panchayats have
been reported in the recent past, e.g., in the last five years.
(b) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned
States shall issue directives/advisories to the
Superintendent of Police of the concerned Districts for
ensuring that the Officer Incharge of the Police Stations of
the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of
inter-caste or inter- religious marriage within their
jurisdiction comes to their notice.
(c) If information about any proposed gathering of a Khap
Panchayat comes to the knowledge of any police officer or
any officer of the District Administration, he shall
forthwith inform his immediate superior officer and also
simultaneously intimate the jurisdictional Deputy
Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police.
9 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -10-
CRM-M-23805-2020
(d) On receiving such information, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (or such senior police officer as
identified by the State Governments with respect to the
area/district) shall immediately interact with the members
of the Khap Panchayat and impress upon them that
convening of such meeting/gathering is not permissible in
law and to eschew from going ahead with such a meeting.
Additionally, he should issue appropriate directions to the
Officer Incharge of the jurisdictional Police Station to be
vigilant and, if necessary, to deploy adequate police force
for prevention of assembly of the proposed gathering.
(e) Despite taking such measures, if the meeting is
conducted, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall
personally remain present during the meeting and impress
upon the assembly that no decision can be taken to cause
any harm to the couple or the family members of the
couple, failing which each one participating in the meeting
besides the organisers would be personally liable for
criminal prosecution. He shall also ensure that video
recording of the discussion and participation of the
members of the assembly is done on the basis of which the
law enforcing machinery can resort to suitable action.
(f) If the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after interaction
with the members of the Khap Panchayat, has reason to
believe that the gathering cannot be prevented and/or is
likely to cause harm to the couple or members of their
family, he shall forthwith submit a proposal to the District
Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the District/
Competent Authority of the concerned area for issuing
orders to take preventive steps under the Cr.P.C.,
including by invoking prohibitory orders under Section
144 Cr.P.C., 1973 and also by causing arrest of the
participants in the assembly under Section 151 Cr.P.C.,
(g) The Home Department of the Government of India
must take initiative and work in coordination with the
State Governments for sensitising the law enforcement
agencies and by involving all the stake holders to identify
the measures for prevention of such violence and to
implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the
rule of law.
(h) There should be an institutional machinery with the
necessary coordination of all the stakeholders. The
different State Governments and the Centre ought to work
on sensitization of the law enforcement agencies to
mandate social initiatives and awareness to curb such
violence.
10 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -11-
CRM-M-23805-2020
II. Remedial Measures:-
(a) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State
Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that the
Khap Panchayat has taken place and it has passed any
diktat to take action against a couple/family of an inter-
caste or inter-religious marriage (or any other marriage
which does not meet their acceptance), the jurisdictional
police official shall cause to immediately lodge an F.I.R.
under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code
including Sections 141, 143, 503 read with 506 of IPC.
(b) Upon registration of F.I.R., intimation shall be
simultaneously given to the Superintendent of Police/
Deputy Superintendent of Police who, in turn, shall ensure
that effective investigation of the crime is done and taken
to its logical end with promptitude.
(c) Additionally, immediate steps should be taken to
provide security to the couple/family and, if necessary, to
remove them to a safe house within the same district or
elsewhere keeping in mind their safety and threat
perception. The State Government may consider of
establishing a safe house at each District Headquarter for
that purpose. Such safe houses can cater to accommodate
(i) young bachelor-bachelorette couples whose
relationship is being opposed by their families /local
community/Khaps and (ii) young married couples (of an
inter-caste or inter-religious or any other marriage being
opposed by their families/local community/Khaps). Such
safe houses may be placed under the supervision of the
jurisdictional District Magistrate and Superintendent of
Police.
(d) The District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police must
deal with the complaint regarding threat administered to
such couple/family with utmost sensitivity. It should be
first ascertained whether the bachelor-bachelorette are
capable adults. Thereafter, if necessary, they may be
provided logistical support for solemnising their marriage
and/or for being duly registered under police protection, if
they so desire. After the marriage, if the couple so desire,
they can be provided accommodation on payment of
nominal charges in the safe house initially for a period of
one month to be extended on monthly basis but not
exceeding one year in aggregate, depending on their
threat assessment on case to case basis.
(e) The initial inquiry regarding the complaint received
from the couple (bachelor-bachelorette or a young
married couple) or upon receiving information from an
independent source that the relationship/marriage of such
11 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -12-
CRM-M-23805-2020
couple is opposed by their family members/local
community/Khaps shall be entrusted by the District
Magistrate/ Superintendent of Police to an officer of the
rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. He shall
conduct a preliminary inquiry and ascertain the
authenticity, nature and gravity of threat perception. On
being satisfied as to the authenticity of such threats, he
shall immediately submit a report to the Superintendent of
Police in not later than one week.
(f) The District Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of
such report, shall direct the Deputy Superintendent of
Police incharge of the concerned sub-division to cause to
register an F.I.R. against the persons threatening the
couple(s) and, if necessary, invoke section 151 of Cr.P.C.,
1973 Additionally, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
shall personally supervise the progress of investigation
and ensure that the same is completed and taken to its
logical end with promptitude. In the course of
investigation, the concerned persons shall be booked
without any exception including the members who have
participated in the assembly. If the involvement of the
members of Khap Panchayat comes to the fore, they shall
also be charged for the offence of conspiracy or abetment,
as the case may be.
III. Punitive Measures:-
(a) Any failure by either the police or district
officer/officials to comply with the aforesaid directions
shall be considered as an act of deliberate negligence
and/or misconduct for which departmental action must be
taken under the service rules. The departmental action
shall be initiated and taken to its logical end, preferably
not exceeding six months, by the authority of the first
instance.
(b) In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam
Servai (supra), the States are directed to take disciplinary
action against the concerned officials if it is found that (i)
such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having
prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident had
already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly
apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the
culprits.
(c) The State Governments shall create Special Cells in
every District comprising of the Superintendent of Police,
the District Social Welfare Officer and District Adi-
Dravidar Welfare Officer to receive petitions/complaints
of harassment of and threat to couples of inter-caste
marriage.
12 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -13-
CRM-M-23805-2020
(d) These Special Cells shall create a 24 hour helpline to
receive and register such complaints and to provide
necessary assistance/advice and protection to the couple."
18. In Civil Writ Petition No.6717 of 2009 titled as 'Asha and
another Vs. State of Haryana and Others' decided on 25.07.2012
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed the interim order dated
31.03.2010 which reads as under:-
"Therefore, all the District and Sessions Judges in
Punjab, Haryana and also U.T. Chandigarh are directed
to ensure that if such run away couples approach them for
help and assistance, interim protection shall be provided
by the learned District and Sessions Judge, pending
further orders of this Court. In case the District and
Sessions Judge is not available, the senior-most Additional
District and Sessions Judge will provide such protection."
19. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.10.2010 passed in the
above-said case Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had given the
following directions:-
"i) The direction of this Court dated 31.3.2010 granting
liberty to couples who have married against the wishes of
their parents to approach the District and Sessions Judges
in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for grant of
protection is made absolute.
ii) The Police Officers are directed to deal sternly with
parents/relatives/other members of the society who
threaten such couples and create law and order situation.
The States of Punjab and Haryana, as also the Union
Territory of Chandigarh are directed to ensure that the
protection centres indicated by them in various affidavits
are properly run so that protection can be given to run
away couples.
iii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory
of Chandigarh are further directed to form
mediation/counselling cells in the offices of
Commissioners/Sr. Superintendents of police to guide
parents, relatives and such couples to live in peace.
iv) The States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory
of Chandigarh are also directed to counsel Gram
Panchayats in villages and create Special Cells in cities so
as to prevail upon resisting parents/relatives to reconcile
13 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -14-
CRM-M-23805-2020
with such couples and they be prevailed upon not to take
as threat to their honour or family honour at all.
v) False cases be not registered at the behest of
parents/relatives under Sections 363/366/376 IPC against
such couples who are majors.
vi) Arrest be normally deferred till absolutely necessary in
such cases and criminal force against the boy/groom be
avoided.
vii) The States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union
Territory of Chandigarh are directed to advertise the
existence of such protection centres all over the respective
states prominently at all police stations and also by
issuing periodically advertisements in various Media. The
States of Punjab and Haryana are further directed to
ensure that a Registrar of Marriages should visit each
protection centre atleast once a week at a fixed time and
date. However, the visit by the Registrar of Marriages in
U.T. Chandigarh shall be at least thrice a week unless
there is no occupant of such centres or there is no
requirement by a couple for Registration.
viii) The State Legal Services Authorities/the District
Legal Services Authorities in the States of Punjab Haryana
and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are directed to
depute some legal service counsel at the said centres at-
least three times a week to provide legal
assistance/counseling to such couples who desire that.
ix) There shall be a Committee at every District
Headquarters comprising of Deputy Commissioner,
Superintendent of Police and District Social Welfare
Officer of the district concerned. In districts having Police
Commissioner system, the Committee would comprise of
Divisional Commissioner, Police Commissioner and
District Social Welfare Officer of the district concerned. It
would be the duty of this Committee to ensure that
directions issued by the respective States, as well as by
this Court are implemented in letter and spirit.
x) Initially the run away couples will be provided shelter
at the Protection centres/shelter homes for a period of ten
days. During the said period the threat perception shall be
reviewed by the above Committee. The period of shelter
may be further extended by the Committee from time to
time, keeping in view the threat perception depending on
the circumstances in each case.
xi) It is further directed that for the first ten days, no
boarding and lodging charges would be payable by such
couples. In case any such couple is constrained to take
14 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -15-
CRM-M-23805-2020
shelter at the protection centre for a longer period, each
committee would determine reasonable charges therefor
or given the social circumstances of the couple extend the
free stay of the couple for such period as deemed
necessary in the facts of the case."
20. While disposing of the above-said petition vide order dated
25.07.2012 Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had observed as
under:-
"The matter is pending before the Court since long
for monitoring only. All the runway couples are being
provided security as and when they approach the Court.
The Shelter Homes in both the States and Union Territory,
Chandigarh are also available for them. We feel that this
petition does not require further monitoring. Accordingly,
we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to
both the States of Punjab & Haryana and Union Territory,
Chandigarh to comply with the directions issued by this
Court on 15.10.2010. In addition to above, further
direction is issued that at every District Headquarters
instead of earmarking any particular place(s), the
authorities shall keep available minimum two rooms in the
Circuit Houses/PWD Rest Houses and shelter be provided
to the newly wedded couples as and when orders are
issued by the District Judge, Deputy Commissioner and
Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.
It is made clear that to get protection, the runway couples
can approach any of the District Judge in the States of
Punjab & Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh and
also Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of
Police in all the districts of the above States and Union
Territory, Chandigarh, irrespective of the place of their
residence.
In view of above, direction No. (x) issued earlier
vide order dated 15.10.2010 deemed to have been deleted
from the order. The facilities to be provided to runway
couples will be reviewed by the officer who initially will
pass an order granting shelter to the runway couples
and/or by the Committee as mentioned in Clause No. (ix)
in the above order. If necessary, legal aid services shall be
provided to the couples in need of shelter."
21. The facts of the present case with other relevant factual
details which have come or have been brought to the notice of this
Court in the course of hearing of the present petitions show how the
15 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -16-
CRM-M-23805-2020
directions issued are flouted and the same may be noticed as under:-
(i) Sunita solemnized marriage with Dharambir and Sunita
and Dharambir filed protection petition CIS
No.PP/18/2018 titled as 'Sunita and Dharambir Vs. State of
Haryana and others' before learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa.
In the above said petition notice was issued to the
respondents. Police report was also filed in that case.
Respondents No.5 to 10-Sita Ram, Sharda Devi, Radhey
Shayam, Sunil Kumar, Balbir and Dalbir made statements
that they had no objection to the marriage of petitioners
Sunita and Dharambir and they will not interfere in the life
of petitioners and will not issue any threat to them in
future. In view of the statement of respondents No.5 to 10,
the petitioners Sunita and Dharambir made joint statement
that in view of statement of respondents No.5 to 10 they do
not apprehend any danger to their life and did not want to
proceed with the petition which may be dismissed as
withdrawn. In view of the statements of Sunita and
Dharambir, the protection petition was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 21.03.2018 copy of which is
taken on record.
(ii) Since the police had knowledge regarding marriage of
Sunita with Dharambir and filing of protection petition
filed by them, the police was expected to take immediate
steps for their rescue on receipt of information regarding
16 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -17-
CRM-M-23805-2020
their abduction. However, it appears that no efforts were
made by the police to rescue the couple immediately on
receipt of the information regarding their abduction.
(iii) Sunita was recovered on 02.06.2018 and statement of
Sunita was got recorded on 02.06.2018 under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. who had stated that on 01.06.2018 at 2:00
p.m. her maternal uncles Balbir and Dalbir, Balwant, Jagat,
Sundar, Sita Ram and Ravi came to her at Dhingsara. She
went to Shishwal with them with her own wish. Her
husband, who had also gone with them, had not come
back home so far. She did not know where he is. Until his
whereabouts are not found till then she will stay in the
house of her maternal uncle at Shishwal. Sunita had named
the persons with whom her husband Dharambir was last
seen by her, yet no raid appears to have been conducted to
arrest the persons named by Sunita or to join them in
investigation for ascertaining the whereabouts of
Dharambir on 02.06.2018 itself.
(iv) Custody of Sunita, who would have been aggrieved by
commission of the offences by her father/other family
members and their relatives, was given to her maternal
uncle/father and no efforts appear to have been ever made
for her protection by informing her that her husband
Dharmbir had been allegedly murdered by her maternal
uncles Balbir and Dalbir along with others despite the fact
17 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -18-
CRM-M-23805-2020
that she was an important witness against the above said
accused and other persons all or most of whom were her
relatives.
(v) Statement of Sunita was got recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. that she had no apprehension of harm to her
and did not need any protection but it appears from her
statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she was
not informed by the police that her husband Dharambir had
been murdered by her relatives. To illustrate by use of
metaphor lamb would be protected against lion not for the
reason that it claims but because it needs the same.
(vi) Dead body of Dharambir was recovered on 03.06.2018
from Sidhmukh Canal in the territory of Raslana and was
identified to be that of Dharambir by his brother Rakesh on
04.06.2018 in the mortuary of CHC Bhadra, Rajasthan but
the Haryana Police came to know about the same later
which shows lack of serious efforts to trace Dharambir.
(vii) Complainant Rai Singh made supplementary statement to
the police on 04.07.2018 alleging that he made enquiries at
his own level and came to know about the identity of the
persons involved in the commission of the offences but it
appears that till the making of such supplementary
statement the police could not and did not know who were
the persons involved in commission of the subject
offences.
18 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -19-
CRM-M-23805-2020
(viii) As per the reply filed before this Court 15 accused persons
were alleged to be involved in the present case in
commission of the offences mentioned out of which only
12 accused were arrested till the date of filing of the reply
and three accused namely Neki Ram, Balwant and Sher
Singh were stated to be absconding despite expiry of more
than 2 years but no proceedings for issuance of non-
bailable warrants of arrest against them, declaring them as
proclaimed offenders and attachment and sale of their
properties are stated to have been taken by the police.
(ix) The police arrested Dharam Pal @ Jagar, Dalbir, Sahab
Ram, Ravi Kumar, Surjit Singh and Shri Ram and filed
police report/challan against them on 25.08.2018, arrested
Sunder Lal, Vinod Kumar, Bhawar Singh and Vikram and
filed police report/challan against them on 11.02.2019,
arrested Beeru and Ved Parkash and filed police
report/challan against them on 15.05.2019 and arrested
Balwant, Naiki Ram, Sher Singh, Balbir and Balraj and
filed police report/challan against them on 30.12.2020. The
delay of more than two years in such arrest and filing of
police reports/challans delayed trial of the case which was
under the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court required
to be concluded within six months. The trial which
commenced on filing of first police report/challan was
conducted denovo every time on filing of supplementary
19 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -20-
CRM-M-23805-2020
police reports/challans by the police so that the trial in fact
commenced only after filing of the fourth police
report/challan on 30.12.2020.
(x) It appears that the police did not record statement of Sunita
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and did not get her
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by
informing her regarding murder of Dharambir for
ascertaining the circumstances leading to or attending the
causing of his death.
(xi) There is no specific mention in the reply as to what
investigation was actually made for ascertaining the role of
father, brother (if any), and other family members of Sunita
in commission of the subject offences apart from their
relatives.
22. The present case is a glaring example how the directions
given by Hon'ble Supreme Court are flouted, how the necessity of
protection to the couple marrying against the wishes of their family
members is ignored, how the police fails to take prompt action to rescue
the couple on information being given to it, how the police tries to
understate the offences, delay the investigation, shield the accused by
its inaction and still claim that there was no laxity or delay in
investigation of the case by it and how the higher police officers, who
do not even know that the case falls in the category of honour killing
and they are required to follow the directions given by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, look the other way round and ignore the deficiencies
20 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -21-
CRM-M-23805-2020
surfacing during investigation with almost culpable failure to
appropriately supervise/monitor the investigation and take appropriate
remedial action to discharge their statutory obligations. It will be
appropriate that the Director General of Police, Haryana gets an enquiry
conducted into the matter and directs taking of appropriate
departmental action against the defaulting Police officers/officials.
23. This Court observed in its order dated 26.10.2020 that
cases involving honour killing require fast track investigation by
Special Investigation Teams having members with requisite expertise
without any undue delay in investigation and unwarranted sympathy
with the offenders while making sincere dedicated serious efforts for
collection of circumstantial evidence available in completion of the
chain of circumstantial evidence incriminating the accused responsible
for commission of the heinous offence, taking of steps for protection of
the witnesses including the survivor-wife or the husband and other
important witnesses and also fast track trial before the Court for early
disposal of the case by securing presence of the prosecution witnesses
before the Court. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Haryana
was directed to file an affidavit giving the following information:-
(i) the number of cases involving honour killing
registered in the State of Haryana in which
investigation or trial is pending;
(ii) the steps taken for securing fast track investigation
and fast track trial of such cases and
(iii) steps taken for protection of the survivor-wife or the
husband and other important witnesses in the
completion of the chain of circumstantial evidence
21 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -22-
CRM-M-23805-2020
incriminating the accused responsible for
commission of the heinous offence.
24. In compliance with order dated 26.10.2020, additional
reply by way of affidavit of Satender Kumr, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Fatehabad was filed by the
respondent-State of Haryana on 10.11.2020 and affidavit of Mr. Manoj
Yadava, Director General of Police, Haryana was filed on 02.12.2020.
25. In his affidavit dated 26.11.2020, Manoj Yadava, Director
General of Police, Haryana submitted that there are total thirteen cases
in the State of Haryana out of which one case has been decided on
11.09.2020. Charge-sheets have been submitted in ten cases. Five cases
are fixed for prosecution evidence while charges are yet to be framed in
five cases. Two cases are pending for investigation. In such cases the
investigation has been ordered to be carried out by Special
Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police
rank Police Officers and such cases have been ordered to be included in
'Chinhit Apradh' Scheme of Haryana Government for monitoring by
District Level Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner and
comprising of Superintendent of Police, District Attorney and
Superintendent of Jail of the District. State of Haryana has notified
"Haryana Witness Protection Scheme, 2020". In the cases which are
pending, the survivor or the witnesses did not move any application for
providing of any protection.
26. From the statistical information given by the Director
General of Police, Haryana this Court observed that case bearing FIR
No.243 dated 30.09.2014 registered under Sections 148, 146, 302, 341,
22 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -23-
CRM-M-23805-2020
342, 506 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Ding was decided on
11.09.2020 after about six years (instead of six months) while one case
was pending since 2017 and three cases were pending since 2018 which
needed to be scrutinized/monitored regarding the delay in
investigation/trial and also lapses in investigation and in securing
presence and examination of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the
delay in recording of prosecution evidence information was sought
from concerned Sessions Judges for ascertaining the causes of delay
occurring in trial of such cases. In view of the observations made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Doongar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2018
(1) RCR Criminal 256, State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and
others, 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 390, Hussain and another Vs.
Union of India 2017(2) RCR Criminal 312 and Thana Singh Vs.
Central Bureau of Narcotics 2013(1) R.C.R(Criminal) 861, the trial
Courts, where these cases were pending for prosecution evidence, were
directed to expedite trial in such cases on resumption of physical
hearing and to conclude prosecution evidence expeditiously by
conducting trial on day to day basis as far as possible and by allocating
block of dates for the trial as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and by
issuing coercive process for securing presence of the witnesses, if so
required. The Director General of Police, Haryana was also directed to
look into the matter of delay in investigation of such cases and also
delay/inaction in execution of Court process and securing presence of
the prosecution witnesses in such cases and issue appropriate
instructions and take remedial steps as may be required. The Director
23 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -24-
CRM-M-23805-2020
General of Police, Haryana was directed to file an additional affidavit
as to instructions so issued and remedial steps so taken and also as to
whether any instructions have been issued earlier to the
Superintendents of Police in the State of Haryana for taking of
disciplinary action against the Police Officers not executing/not
returning the Court process; not producing the accused on the date of
hearing fixed; and not attending the Court in compliance with
summons/warrant of arrest issued against them and whether any action
was so taken in these cases.
27. In view of the nature of the matter involved which also
concerned the State of Punjab and U.T., Chandigarh, vide order dated
03.02.2020 State of Punjab and U.T., Chandigarh were ordered to be
impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3 in CRM-M-23537-2020. The
Director General of Police, Punjab and the Director General of Police,
Chandigarh were also directed to file affidavits in the registry before
the date fixed furnishing information regarding following aspects:-
(i) the number of cases involving honour killing
registered in the State of Punjab/U.T., Chandigarh in
which investigation or trial is pending;
(ii) the steps taken for securing fast track investigation
and fast track trial of such cases and
(iii) steps taken for protection of the survivor-wife or the
husband and other important witnesses in the
completion of the chain of circumstantial evidence
incriminating the accused responsible for
commission of the heinous offences.
28. In compliance with order dated 03.12.2020, affidavit dated
02.02.2021 of Mr. Manoj Yadava, Director General of Police, Haryana,
24 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -25-
CRM-M-23805-2020
Panchkula was filed and reports were received from concerned District
and Sessions Judges. Affidavit dated 03.02.2021 of Sh. Dinkar Gupta,
Director General of Police, Punjab and affidavit dated of 03.02.2021
Sh. Sanjay Beniwal, Director General of Police. U.T. Chandigarh were
filed. In his affidavit, Sh. Dinkar Gupta, Director General of Police,
Punjab submitted that fourteen cases of honour killing are pending in
the State of Punjab while in his affidavit Sh. Sanjay Beniwal, Director
General of Police. U.T. Chandigarh has submitted that no case of
honour killing is pending in U.T., Chandigarh.
29. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
affidavits filed and reports received in the case showing flagrant
violation of some of the directions already issued by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court, delay or laxity in proper investigation and
collection of evidence available and delay in conclusion of trial and for
preventing abuse of process and securing ends of justice and also for
discharge of obligation of this Court to uphold the Constitution and the
Laws and to preserve and maintain Rule of Law, directions are issued
in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India/Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as under:-
1. Directions to State Governments
Governments of Punjab and Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh
Administration are directed to appoint Committees consisting of Home
Secretary, Finance Secretary, Additional Director General of Police,
Legal Remembrancer and Member Secretary of the State Legal Services
Authorities, Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh at the State level
25 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -26-
CRM-M-23805-2020
within one month which shall examine all the relevant issues of
compliance with the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court and submit their reports with their recommendations within
three months and Governments of Punjab and Haryana and U.T.
Chandigarh Administration shall consider recommendations so made
and take policy based action for implementing the recommendations
considered appropriate/necessary for giving effect to the directions
given by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court from time to time. The
Committee shall also periodically monitor the issue of compliance with
such directions in the States of Punjab and Haryana and U.T.
Chandigarh.
2. Directions to the police:-
The Director Generals of Police, Punjab, Haryana and U.T.
Chandigarh are directed to (i) create a Special Cell in each Districts
which shall collect and maintain information and prepare the data base
in respect of couples who approached this Court or the District and
Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh
for protection and call for reports regarding assessment of threat
perception to them and take appropriate action/issue necessary
instructions and (ii) set up 24 hour helpline or enable any of the
helplines already set up to receive and register request for protection
and to coordinate with the concerned police officers/officials for
providing necessary assistance/advice/protection to such couples.
The Director Generals of Police, Punjab, Haryana and U.T.
Chandigarh are further directed to issue instructions to the
26 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -27-
CRM-M-23805-2020
Commissioners of Police/Senior Superintendents of Police/
Superintendents of Police in the States of Punjab and Haryana and U.T.,
Chandigarh for ensuring that
(i) in case of reporting of any violence against inter caste or
inter religion marriage or honour killing, FIR is immediately registered
and upon registration of FIR, intimation is simultaneously given to the
concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police who, in turn, shall ensure
that effective investigation of the crime is done and taken to its logical
end with promptitude within the period of 60/90 days as the case may
be as far as possible.
(ii) Additionally, immediate steps are taken to provide security
to the couple/family and, if necessary, to remove them to a safe house
within the same district or elsewhere keeping in mind their safety and
threat perception.
(iii) Any failure by any police officer/official to comply with
the aforesaid directions be considered as an act of misconduct for which
departmental action be taken under the service rules.
3. Directions for expeditious trial :-
(i) All the Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana
and U.T. Chadnigarh are directed to ensure that cases of Honour Killing
are assigned to the designated Court/Fast Track Court/one jurisdictional
court.
(ii) Such Courts concerned are directed to ensure expeditious
disposal of such cases preferably within the period of six months as
directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini's case (supra).
27 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -28-
CRM-M-23805-2020
This direction shall apply even to pending cases with modification of
applicability from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Doongar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2018 (1) RCR
Criminal 256, State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh and
others, 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 390, Hussain and another Vs.
Union of India 2017(2) RCR Criminal 312 and Thana Singh Vs.
Central Bureau of Narcotics 2013(1) R.C.R(Criminal) 861 the
concerned Courts shall conduct trial on day to day basis as far as
possible by allocating block of dates for the trial as directed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court and by issuing coercive process for securing presence
of the witnesses, if so required.
(iv) In case of non-appearance of any of the witnesses, the
concerned Court shall take appropriate action against the concerned
witness absenting without any lawful excuse by filing complaint under
Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or taking proceedings
under Section 350 of the Cr.P.C. against him.
(v) In cases where the trial is not concluded within the period
of six months, the concerned Court shall submit the progress report to
this Court seeking extension of time specifically mentioning the period
within which the trial is likely to be concluded.
4. Directions to the State Legal Services Authorities:-
The State Legal Services Authorities, Punjab, Haryana and
U.T. Chandigarh are directed :
(i) to prepare a scheme for providing legal aid to couples
28 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -29-
CRM-M-23805-2020
seeking protection and also legal aid to the complainant for
representing him in cases of violence against inter caste/inter religion
marriage and honour killings and properly presenting the case before
the trial Court for award of compensation to the victims of violence
against inter caste/inter religion marriages and dependents of victims of
honour killings against accused in the eventuality of their conviction;
(ii) to further strengthen through para legal volunteers,
Anganwadi Workers, National Social Service Volunteers, Saksham
Yuva, Students of Law Colleges and School/College Legal Literacy
Clubs their public awareness programmes against the social evils of
violence against inter caste/inter religion marriages and honour killing;
and
(iii) to take appropriate steps for award of appropriate
interim/final compensation to the victims of inter caste/inter religion
marriage and dependants/legal heirs of victims of honour killing under
the Victim Compensation Scheme including the steps of issuance of
appropriate directions by this Court, if so required.
30. Haryana State Legal Services Authority is also directed to
take appropriate steps for award of compensation to legal heirs of
Dharambir within three months from the date of this order.
31. A Copy of this order be supplied to learned State Counsel
for the States of Punjab and Haryana and Additional Public Prosecutor
for U.T., Chandigarh and be also sent to the Chief Secretaries, Punjab
and Haryana and Home Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh, the Director
Generals of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh, Member
29 of 30
CRM-M-23537-2020 and -30-
CRM-M-23805-2020
Secretaries of Legal Services Authorities, Punjab, Haryana and U.T.,
Chandigarh and all District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab
and Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh for requisite compliance.
31.08.2021 (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
30 of 30
