Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 16076 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 September, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114916-DB




CRR-123-2022 (O & M)



                                  ::1::



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                    Date of decision: 03.09.2024

1)         CRR-123-2022 (O & M)

Ravinder Singh
                                                           ...... Petitioner(s)
           V/s



State of Punjab and ors.                                   ...Respondent(s)


2)         CRR-908-2022 (O & M)

Amandeep Kaur and anr.
                                                           ...... Petitioner(s)

           V/s

State of Punjab and anr.                                   ...Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioners.

             Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

             Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
             ****


JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

This order shall dispose of two criminal revision petitions i.e.

CRR-123-2022 and CRR-908-2022 as they arise out of the same FIR.

2. The present revision petitions are directed against the judgment

and order dated 20.12.2021 whereby the Trial Court while acquitting the

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114916-DB

CRR-123-2022 (O & M)

::2::

respondent No.2-Gursharan Singh who was facing Trial in FIR No.179 dated

26.10.2020 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil

Lines, District Bathinda, has directed initiation of departmental proceedings

against the petitioners, registration of an FIR, prosecution of the petitioners

under Section 344 Cr.P.C. and the award of compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from CRR-123-

2022.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2020, Sub Inspector

(SI) Harpinder Kaur (petitioner in CRR-908-2022) along with a police party

had just stepped outside the gate of Police Station Civil Lines in connection

with patrolling and checking of suspected persons, when she met the

prosecutrix along with her husband Rajwinder Singh who got recorded her

statement to her, interalia, alleging that she was a house wife and her

husband Rajwinder Singh was earlier working as an Assistant Sub Inspector

of Police (ASI) and had been dismissed. However, she along with her

husband had been acting as an informer of the police giving tip offs about

drug traffickers. It is further alleged that they gave information to the higher

Police officials of Punjab Police about some unknown persons indulging in

trafficking narcotics drugs whereupon they were told by the higher officials

to contact DSP Gursharan Singh posted in the Special Task Force, Narcotics,

Bathinda and gave her mobile number as 73474-95495. She met DSP

Gursharan Singh for giving information due to which she got acquainted

with him. It is further alleged that DSP Gursharan Singh called her on her

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114916-DB

CRR-123-2022 (O & M)

::3::

mobile No.98154-25925 and used to talk to her on one pretext or the other. It

is further alleged that DSP Gursharan Singh used to ask her to come to

different hotels and on her refusal, he threatened her with the registration of

a criminal case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). It is further alleged that DSP Gursharan Singh

got annoyed and thereafter got registered an FIR No.118 dated 22.07.2020

under Section 22, 25 of the NDPS Act, PS Nehianwala, Bathinda against her,

her husband Rajwinder Singh and her son Harpreet Singh due to which she

gave in to his demand and on 13.09.2020, DSP Gursharan Singh asked her to

come at Ashiana Hotel and she reached there about 3.30/4.00 PM where

DSP Gursharan Singh raped her in room No.5 of the hotel. It is further

alleged that thereafter also he used to physically exploit her in Ashiana Hotel

and on that day also i.e. on 26.10.2020, he called her from his mobile

No.98154-25925 directing her to come in Room No.13 of Ashiana Hotel,

Bathinda and she complied with the demand of DSP Gursharan Singh who

raped her in the hotel whereupon she raised a hue and cry and saved herself

and thereafter she narrated the occurrence to her husband and went to the

police station to report the matter. On the basis of aforesaid statement, the

FIR in question was registered against the accused. SI Harpinder Kaur

arrested him on 27.10.2020 and also got recovered one mobile phone with

two SIM numbers i.e. 73474-95495 and 90417-87700 and another mobile

phone bearing SIM numbers 87661-00001 and 94175-11670, which were

taken into possession. Further investigation was handed over to Sub

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114916-DB

CRR-123-2022 (O & M)

::4::

Inspector (SI) Amandeep Kaur (petitioner No.1 in CRR-908-2022) who got

conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix on 27.10.2020.

Vaginal swab samples of the prosecutrix as well as blood samples of the

accused were obtained by the medical officer which were later on dispatched

to the FSL for detection of human semen and conducting DNA profiling.

Accused was produced in the court on 27.10.2020 and police remand was

obtained. The prosecutrix also suffered statement before the JMIC, Bathinda

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 29.10.2020. On the completion of the

investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the police report under

Section 173(2) Cr.PC before the competent court.

5. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the statement of the

prosecutrix-Kuldeep Kaur was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein

she supported the prosecution version.

6. Later, she, while deposing in Court as PW-1 and her husband-

Rajwinder Singh as PW-8 did not support the prosecution case and were

declared hostile. The petitioner-Ravinder Singh (in CRR-123-2022), then

then SHO was examined as PW-16 whereas the petitioners No.1 and 2,

namely, Amandeep Kaur and Harpinder Kaur (in CRR-908-2022) who were

Sub Inspectors were examined as PW-3 and PW-2 respectively.

7. Ultimately, Gursharan Singh-respondent No.2 came to be

acquitted vide judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Bathinda. However, while acquitting him, the Court

directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioners, the initiation of

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114916-DB

CRR-123-2022 (O & M)

::5::

departmental proceedings against them, their prosecution for giving false

evidence and awarding of compensation to the acquitted accused-Gursharan

Singh. It is this part of the aforesaid judgment which is under challenge in

the present revision petitions.

8. Meanwhile, with respect to the implementation of the directions

issued in the aforementioned judgment, CRM-M-57881-2022 was filed

before this Court. In the said petition, a response was sought from the

official respondents. As per the said response, an SIT had been constituted,

as per which, no FIR was to be registered and no departmental proceedings

were to be initiated against the present petitioners. However, the revival of

proceedings under Section 193 IPC was left open depending on the outcome

of the instant revisions petitions.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

challenge in the present petitions was to the directions issued in the

judgment dated 20.12.2021. As the investigating agency had already

recommended that no departmental or criminal proceedings were to be

initiated against the petitioners, the present petitions were rendered

infructuous to that extent. However, the proceedings could be initiated

under Section 193 IPC in view of the reply submitted in the aforementioned

criminal miscellaneous petition.

10. The learned counsel for the State-respondent No.1 has not

disputed the factual position as narrated above.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114916-DB

CRR-123-2022 (O & M)

::6::

11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute

the factual position as emanating from the record.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined

the record.

13. Admittedly, while acquitting respondent No.2-Gursharan Singh,

certain directions had been issued against the petitioners and to implement

those directions, CRM-M-57881-2022 had been filed, during the course of

which, a reply was filed stating that an SIT constituted had found that no

FIR was required to be registered and nor were any departmental

proceedings required to be initiated against the petitioners.

14. In this view of the matter, the present petitions which have

challenged the directions given in the judgment dated 20.12.2021 are

rendered infructuous and the same are disposed of as such.

15. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail their

remedies in accordance with law, in case, proceedings under Section 193

IPC, etc. are initiated against them.

( SUDHIR SINGH ) JUDGE

( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE

September 03, 2024 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6