IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-29952 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 08, 2011 Rekha Jhangra .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, not to implicate the petitioner in a false case on the asking of respondent No.3. i.e. Hardeep Singh Baniwal, Station House Officer/ Incharge, Economic Wing, Police Station, Sirhind. It has further been prayed that Crl. Misc. No. M-29952 of 2010 [2] appropriate action against respondent No.3 for molesting the petitioner and forcing her to have relationship, may be taken. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner gives up the prayer made at the first instance, as noticed above. 3. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner, indeed, has been molested by respondent No.3 and therefore, an enquiry to that effect needs to be conducted. 4. From the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it transpires that the petitioner is a travel agent and is habitual of taking money from innocent persons and defrauding them. A reference to complaint(s) in that regard has been made. 5. It has also been brought out that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.213 dated 10.10.2001 registered with Police Station, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, for commission of offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Likewise, the petitioner is accused in FIR No.115 dated 24.8.2010, Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC. 6. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has a bad reputation and criminal antecedents. It has also been argued that it has not been shown by the petitioner as to in what context, she went to the Police Station repeatedly where respondent No.3 was posted as Station House Officer. Crl. Misc. No. M-29952 of 2010 [3] 7. Having considered the contentions in context of the pleadings, I find that even in the affidavit furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner does not say as to in what context she went to the police station. Under the circumstances, suspicion is raised as regards the allegations made by the petitioner. This is particularly so because the petitioner happens to be involved in cases of criminal nature pending in Police Station where respondent No.3 is the Incharge. 8. From the reply filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it transpires that there was no occasion to conduct enquiry because no complaint was made against respondent No.3, in due course. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner to make a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police Fatehgarh Sahib, who, I am sure, would take action in accordance with law. (AJAI LAMBA) August 08, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?