Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision:- 16.8.2010. Raj Rani ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner - Raj Rani has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for issuing directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 to initiate an independent inquiry into the Flesh Trade being run by respondent No.4 in connivance with respondents Nos. 5 to 14, who after using the services of the petitioner and that of Sunita Rani collected huge amounts by threatening the innocent people for implicating them in false case of rape or under Immoral Traffic Act and for referring the matter to some independent agency. She has sought further direction to Respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect her life and liberty and that of her family members as she is getting constant threats from respondent No.4 to re-enter the flesh trade and otherwise he would eliminate her. Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -2- According to the petitioner she is a young lady belonging to downtrodden family of Guru Har Sahai Mandi. She was allured by respondent No. 4 to extract money and made her a tool to collect huge amounts from rich, influential and other young-men by giving them threats of implicating them in false cases of attempt to rape or under immoral Traffic Act. That respondent No.4 remained posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Guru Har Sahai from January 2008 to May/April 2009 and thereafter was transferred to nearby Police Station namely Sadar Mukatsar. She came in contact with him who found that she was a needy person. He gave her assurance of employment and got her mobile phone available for the boys. The modus operandi suggested by respondent No.4 was that she should call those boys and thereafter he will conduct the raid and after threatening them for implicating in criminal cases, he would extract huge amounts and some share would also be given to her. Respondent No.4 had extracted huge amounts from the persons named in para No.4 of the petition and from one Kulwinder Singh. In the entire process respondents No.5 to 14 were helping respondent No.4. One of those respondents used to accompany respondent No.4 at the time of alleged rape to take photographs by posing himself to be a journalist from some News Channel. Similarly respondent No.4 by getting services of another girl namely; Rozi, extracting different amounts from persons named in para No.7 of the petition. Her parents performed her marriage with Mangal Singh about two months back and she stopped the above illegal activities being indulged at the instance of respondent No.4 and started leading peaceful life. However that respondent Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -3- had been contacting her on the phone and insisting her to again start said illegal act for extracting money. When she refused to do so that respondent started threatening her to implicate her and her husband and other family members in false criminal case. This respondent No.4 was involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, also. After his posting in Police Station Sadar Mukatsar, he again made an attempt to extract the money by his said illegal activities. It is also her plea that she submitted a representation to the higher authorities, including DGP, Punjab, but no action has been taken against respondent No.4. She is apprehending threat to her life and liberty at the instance of that respondent, who is pressurising her to indulge in the illegal acts. On notice of motion having been issued detailed replies have been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply pleaded that the petitioner is habitual in making false criminal complaints and then compromising the matter due to some ulterior motive best known to her. This petition has been filed at the instance of one Surinder Singh Dhawan, who first allured Sunderan for filing the petition against respondent No.4 and thereafter approached Rozi for implicating the police officials but she refused to oblige him. Respondent No.4 apprehending that he may be falsely implicated in criminal cases at the instance of Surinder Singh Dhawan entered DDR No. 6 dated 16.7.2009 and reports were sent to the Senior police officials for information. In fact Surinder Singh Dhawan is against the blood of respondent No.4, against whom the complaint was made by Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -4- Laljit Singh for fraudulently selling his car, which was having a forged registration number. The matter was patched up by Surinder Singh Dhawan. But later on he with a mala fide intention filed Crl. Misc. No. 18282 – M of 2009 against respondent No.4 in this Court and he is master mind behind in getting the present petition filed from the petitioner. Even the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against respondent No.4 was lodged by Surinder Singh Dhawan. Cancellation report was submitted and thereafter Kalandra was submitted under Section 182 Cr.P.C against him. After Sunderan Rani and Rozy refused to oblige, he approached Sunita Rani and managed to get Crl. Misc. No. M 23054 of 2009 filed through her on false and frivolous grounds in order to achieve goal of false implication of respondent No.4. The present petition is word by word copy of that criminal miscellaneous, which was filed by him through Sunita Rani. The petitioner herself is accused in FIR No. 124 dated 4.10.2008, registered under Section 376/34 IPC in Police Station Fazilka. She lodged one FIR No.60 dated 7.5.2008, under Sections 376, 377, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC, in Police Station City Jalabad, in which she said that she herself and said Sunita Rani were raped. The cancellation report was submitted in the Court, in which she made a statement for the cancellation of the FIR, but the Court declined the cancellation of the FIR. Respondent No.4 in his reply pleaded that the present petition has been got filed by Surinder Singh Dhawan, who is having a personal grudge against him. Similarly he got filed another similar petition from Sunita Rani. However, better sense prevailed upon that lady and the petition was Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -5- withdrawn by her. The petitioner in conspiracy with Surinder Singh Dhawan is trying to falsely implicate him and tarnish his image. She herself is facing lot of criminal litigation. The allegations made by her are not only scandalous but vexatious also. Even if those allegations are taken on their face value, even than the petitioner cannot absolve herself of mis-deeds committed by her. As per her own statement she was doing everything with her full knowledge and co-operation. It is strange to note that she has agreed for the alleged nefarious activities on the allurement of making easy money. She herself had been indulging in all the said illegal activities and finding an opportunity colluded with Surinder Singh Dhawan, who was already nursing a grudge against him. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts as disclosed in the petition are such that a thorough inquiry is required to be conducted into the acts of respondent No.4, who infact had been running flesh trade racket after making the petitioner and other ladies a tool and had been extracting huge amounts from the persons named in para No.4 by threatening them to implicate them in case of rape and under Immoral Trafficking in Women Act. This Court cannot close its eyes after such like acts have been disclosed to it. It has been submitted by learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the present petition has been got filed at the instance of Surinder Singh Dhawan, who has made a petitioner as a tool in order to tarnish the image of respondent No.4. Sunita Rani was also Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -6- made to file such like petition, but the same was withdrawn by her. They also submit that the petitioner herself is of dubious character and was involved in offences of rape. There is mud slinging from both the sides. It transpires from the contents of the petition and the replies submitted by the respondents that some activities of the nature mentioned in the petition had been going on. It appears that some persons were trapped and under the threat of implicating them in false cases of rape etc., money was extracting from them. However, it is a disputed question of fact as to whether the same was being done by respondent No.4 by using the petitioner as tool or was being done by petitioner herself with the help of Surinder Singh Dhawan. The role of Surinder Singh Dhawan appears to be most dubious. He himself filed criminal Misc. No. M – 32364 of 2010, in which he pleaded that he was able to find the ladies, including Sunita, who were being used as tools by respondent No.4. It is pertinent to note that the petition filed by said Sunita is verbatim the same as the petition filed by the present petition. In order to secure the ends of justice, I am of the considered opinion that FIR be got registered in respect of the activities so complained in the petition and the matter be thoroughly investigated, so that it may be ascertained as to who was the real culprit. The FIR is to be registered on the basis of the representation made by the present petitioner to the DGP dated 13.7.2009 (Ex.P-3), affidavit of Sundaran Rani (Annexure R-II/T) and affidavit of Rozi (Annexure R-III/T), within 10 days of the receipt of copy of this order by the officer in-charge Police Station Guru Har Sahai. The Crl. Misc. No. M – 27894 of 2009(O&M) -7- investigation shall be conducted by a police officer belonging to IPS cadar to be nominated by the D.G.P within a week of the registration of the FIR, who will submit progress report every month to this Court and shall complete the investigation within six months. The petition is disposed of accordingly. August 16, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge