IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.127 of 2010. Date of Decision: 14th September, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Meenu Parkash ….Applicant/Appellant. Versus Shamesher Massi and another ..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. J.R. Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr. N.K. Sood and Mr. Aman Sood, Advocates. For respondent No.2: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) Cr.M.P.(M) No.616 of 2010. Heard and gone through the record of the learned trial Court. 2. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant/appellant, which prima facie constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. As such, the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Cr.M.P.(M) No.617 of 2010. 3. It was a State case at the instance of the complainant (appellant herein) against respondent No.1 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that in the year 2005-2006 and thereafter on 19th/20th May, 2007 near Christ Church Annexe, The Ridge, Shimla, respondent No.1, who is a President of the Church Society and the Priest, is alleged to have uttered words, made gesture and tried to take her photographs in a public place without her consent with an intention to insult her modesty. The complaint Ext.PW1/A was moved by the complainant to the Police, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW2/A. 4. Police swung into motion, reached the spot, prepared the site plan Ext.PW2/B and recorded the statements of the witnesses, thereafter Challan was presented before the learned trial Court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted. 5. The State did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of acquittal, but the complainant has chosen to file the appeal. 6. On going through the record, I find that the complainant alongwith her husband has been residing in the Annexe of the Christ Church and respondent No.1. The - 3 - husband of the complainant was removed from the membership of the Church Society for anti Church activities. Respondent had filed an injunction suit against the complainant and her husband and contempt proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure were also pending. Besides this, the proceedings under Sections 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also going on. Since the appellant is living in the Annexe of the Church and her husband was removed from executive membership of the Church, as such eviction petition was filed for their eviction qua the premises of the Church occupied by them, which is also sub-judice. Against the aforesaid background the allegations made by the complainant are to be examined closely and very carefully. 7. The complainant appeared before the learned trial Court as PW-1. The litigation inter se the parties stands admitted by her. She stated before the Court that the respondent was harassing her from the year 2004-2006, but she did not report the matter to the police. At the time of making the complaint the complainant, was teaching in B.P.S. Pillani (Rajasthan). She alleged that as and when she used to visit Shimla to join the company - 4 - of her husband during vacations in the summer and winter the respondent aforesaid used to harass her. In her complaint Ext.PW1/A she has made reference with respect to some of the earlier complaints which did not find the light of the day during the trial. She also stated that in the previous complaint the respondent tendered apology in the presence of Assistant Sub Inspector, but the said Assistant Sub Inspector was not produced in evidence nor any such complaints were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer PW-2 Rattan Singh, Sub Inspector. Even the Investigating Officer stated that during the investigation entertained some doubt in the allegations leveled by the complainant and had also recommended for the cancellation of FIR. 8. The complainant had given the reference with respect to the incident which has taken place with her with effect from 2004 to July, 2006, it is not understood as to why she did not make the report to the police and what prompted her to file the complaint now. The photographs which are alleged to have been taken by the respondent were not taken into possession by the Police so as to lend strength to her case. Her own statement is also contradicted by her own witness PW-3 Sneh Prabh, who has given a different version to that of - 5 - the complainant. The complainant stated that the statement of PW-3 was recorded at her residence by the police, but PW-3 stated that she was called to the S.P. Office where her statement was recorded. Both these witnesses have also given different statements with respect to the place of incident. The statement of the husband of the complainant is also biased for the reasons aforesaid. The learned trial Court had taken note of the aforesaid facts. The case against the respondent lacks probity. Thus, no interference is called. Leave to appeal is declined. Application stands dismissed. Cr. Appeal No.127 of 2010. 9. In view of the rejection of the application for leave to appeal, the appeal is dismissed. September 14, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)