COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 13-10-2009 Pooja Kalia ....Petitioner VERSUS Sudhanshu Shekhar Srivastava ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh with Ms. Gurdarshan Kaur, Inspector RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J C.M.No. 15455-CII of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No. 1231 of 2008 As per the averments made in this petition vide order dated 31.7.2007 passed in Crl.Misc.No.28316-M of 2006, a direction was issued to the SSP, Chandigarh to look into the complaint made by the petitioner and to act in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition was that despite the aforesaid order the respondents have failed to act in accordance with law on her complaint. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of Sh.Sudhanshu Shekhar Srivastava, Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh has been filed wherein it has been submitted as under:- COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) 2 “4. That further, the DSP/W&CS U enquired the matter as per the orders of the Hon'ble SSP, Chandigarh and the complaint filed by the petitioner was looked into. The petitioner levelled allegations her husband Sh.Sanjiv Kalia and his family members for dowry harassment and mental and physical cruelty. The complaint was similar to the one which was earlier filed with the Women & Child Support Unit, U.T, Chandigarh and the same was enquired itno and no cognizable offence was made out. Since the petitioner and her parents are permanent residents of U.K., she did not join the inquiry to substantiate her allegations. Nevertheless, the petitioner was again summoned to substantiate her allegations levelled in the complaint by sending her summons at her address i.e. H.No. 3422, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, but she was not found at the above said address and one Ashok Kumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner and got his statement recorded and alleged that the petitioner is living in U.K. And she was beaten and was abused by her in laws in U.K only. The said Ashok Kumar further stated that 5000 Dollars were demanded by the in laws of the petitioner and the petitioner came to India in December, 2005 and demanded the dowry articles, but her in laws refused to return the same. On this the independent witnesses were examined from the neighbourhood and statements were also recorded of other concerned persons. The names and address of the above said persons who were examined are as under:- i) Sh.Ram Parsad Sharma r/o # 2703, Sec. 38-C, Chandigarh COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) 3 ii)Sh.R.D.Sharma, r/o @ 2701, Sec. 38-C, Chandigarh iii)Sh.Gulwant Singh Sathi, r/o H.No. 2706 Sec. 38-C, Chandigarh. iv)Sh.Krishan Pal r/o # 2845, Sec. 38-C, Chandigarh. v) Sh.Naresh Kumar r/o # 847 Sec. 38-C, Chandigarh vi)Sh.Amarjit Singh r/o # 664, Ph-2, Mohali vii)Sh.Gian Chand r/o # 879 Sec.43-A, Chandigarh viii)Sh.Tarsem Lal Sharma # 3137/44-D, Chandigarh ix)Sh.Bikram Singh # 2184 PG-10, Mohali 5. That the above said witnesses stated that the petitioner was never tortured and harassed on the demand of dowry articles etc. by her in laws. The witnesses further revealed that the main issue of contention was that the petitioner wanted to stay in the United Kingdom and was not keen to stay in India and also wanted her husband to live with her in the United Kingdom. The husband of the petitioner does not want to leave his old & aged parents in India and was keen to settle in his motherland only. This difference of opinion was the reason of the dispute between the petitioner and her husband. It was further found in the enquiry that a decree of divorce has been granted to the petitioner and her husband by the Hon'ble Judge Hallon, Bromley County Court, London, claim no. CR05D02510 dated 12.4.2006. The evidence of the petitioner before the matrimonial court reflects that the petitioner admitted before the Matrimonial Court in U.K that she is not having any problem with her husband or with her COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) 4 in laws and she was living with them happily. A copy of the enquiry conducted by Sh.P.K.Dhawan, DSP/W&CSU is attached herewith as Annexure R-2. 6. That it would be bear reiteration that the petitioner never joined the enquiry at any point of time to substantiate her allegations despite the fact that she was repeatedly summoned by the enquiry officer. It is worth mentioning that a FIR No. 183 dated 14.6.2006 under Section 467, 468, 471 IPC was registered in Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh against one Ashok Kumar, uncle of the petitioner for forging the signatures of the petitioner on the previous complaint dated 16.12.2005. 7. That the aforesaid enquiry conducted by the DSP/W&CS& was sent to Deputy DA for his comments and it was opined by the DDA that from the enquiry no cognizable offence is made out on the complaint under consideration warranting the registration of FIR. A copy of the opinion of the Deputy DA dated 9.10.2007 is attached herewith as Annexure R-3. 8. That further the respondent on receiving the enquiry report immediately informed the Assistant Registrar (Law), Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide letter no. 120/LH/32939/UT/E-6, dated 24.10.2007 and conveyed that the enquiry has been conducted by DSP/W&CSU and the independent and concerned persons do not substantiate the allegations. Further the petitioner also admitted in the divorce petition in U.K that she has no problem with her COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) 5 husband and her in laws and no cognizable offence is made out. A copy of the enquiry report was annexed with the said letter. A copy of the said letter is attached herewith as Annexure R-4.” On the basis of the aforesaid reply, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the complaint of the petitioner has been looked into and the necessary action in accordance with law has also been taken. It is relevant to mention at this stage that keeping in view the different stands taken by the parties, this Court on 30.4.2009 observed as under:- “Reply filed on behalf of the respondent today in the Court is taken on record and a copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 4 of the reply, it stands mentioned that since the petitioner and her parents are permanent residents of UK, therefore, the petitioner did not join the enquiry to substantiate her allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining instructions, states that the petitioner is ready and willing to come to India and appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. He also states that once the petitioner reaches Chandigarh necessary intimation shall be conveyed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh regarding the place where she would be putting up and the date and time when she would be available for appearing before the said officer. After the petitioner appears before the respondent COCP No. 1231 of 2008 (O&M) 6 and joins the investigation, necessary information be placed before the Court by way of additional affidavit of the respondent.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to substantiate her allegations. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions from Ms. Gurdarshan Kaur, Inspector, Incharge Woman and Child Support Unit, U.T., Chandigarh who is present in Court has very fairly stated that in case the petitioner comes to India and joins the investigation and places on record some material in support of her case, the same shall be looked into by the respondent in accordance with law. Disposed of. October 13, 2009 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) rekha Judge