IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 16, 2011 Mahender Dhopra and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Alongwith the present petition, the Court intends to dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M-26473 of 2010 filed by Lokesh, son of the petitioners as in both the petitions transfer of trial of case FIR No. 223 dated 2.9.2009 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala to any other District in the State of Haryana has been prayed for. According to the petitioners in both the petitions, on 12.5.2010 when they were going back towards lawyers' chambers after attending the Court at Patiala, Mandeep Singh, brother of complainant Devinder Singh, wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill them. At Crl. Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 -2- that time, said Mandeep Singh was accompanied by complainant Devinder Singh and 8/10 unknown persons. All of them gave beatings besides snatching mobile phone, ATM Debit card and PAN Card. Even other important documents in possession of petitioner-Mahender Dhopra were snatched. Immediately, Mahender Dhopra-petitioner moved an application to the concerned SHO but no action was taken upon the same. On 21.5.2010, petitioner Mahender Dhopra again visited Police Station Kotwali and requested the SHO to take action on his complaint. On the asking of the SHO, he once again submitted another application but still, no action was taken by the police. On 11.6.2010, petitioner-Mahender Dhopra moved an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala for taking action against Mandeep Singh and others in respect of the occurrence, which had taken place on 12.5.2010. Despite the same, no action was taken. On 8.7.2010, after the petitioners attended the Court at Patiala and were coming down the ramp of lawyers' chambers, ASI Naseeb Singh in plain clothes and Mandeep Singh besides 11/12 unknown persons, who were armed with pistols, started giving slaps and kick blows to Mahender Dhopra and Smt. Kaushalya Devi-petitioners. ASI Naseeb Singh snatched an amount of Rs.5,200/- from the pocket of Mahender Dhopra- petitioner. Thereafter, ASI Naseeb Singh caught hold of Lokesh- petitioner and started dragging him towards the ground floor. He asked Mandeep Singh to start the car for taking Lokesh-petitioner away. Crl. Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 -3- However, their attempt remained unsuccessful because of an alarm raised by the petitioners. ASI Naseeb Singh threatened the petitioners that in case they entered Patiala again, they would not return alive. On 10.7.2010, Mahender Dhopra-petitioner moved an application to SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Patiala with copies to the Inspector General of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala for taking appropriate action against ASI Naseeb Singh, Mandeep Singh and 11/12 unknown persons. Despite the same, no action was taken by the police. According to the petitioners, the local police was hand in glove with the culprits. So much so that ASI Naseeb Singh while in civil clothes gave beatings to petitioners-Mahender Dhopra and Smt. Kaushalya Devi besides making an attempt to kidnap Lokesh-petitioner. Prayer was, accordingly, made for transferring the trial of the case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala to any Court of competent jurisdiction outside the State of Punjab. While issuing notice of motion, this Court had called for a report from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala as to whether any application dated 11.6.2010 was received and what action had been taken on the same. Pursuant to the same, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala vide his letter dated 20.9.2010 submitted a report with regard to the application submitted by petitioner Mahender Dhopra and enquiry conducted thereon. In his report, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala stated that the complaint dated Crl. Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 -4- 11.6.2010 submitted by the petitioner and routed through the Inspector General of Police was received and Shri Narinder Kaushal, PPS, Superintendent of Police/City Patiala was deputed as an Enquiry Officer. The Superintendent of Police/City, Patiala conducted the enquiry by issuing notices to the complainant/petitioner requiring him to join the enquiry proceedings. Despite the same, the petitioner did not come forward. However, the opposite party appeared before the Superintendent of Police/City, Patiala and got recorded their statements. On completion of enquiry, the Superintendent of Police/City arrived at the conclusion that on the complaint of Devinder Singh, case FIR No. 223 dated 2.9.2009, under Sections 406/420 IPC was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala against the petitioners. Another case, i.e. FIR No. 159 dated 3.7.2010 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC was also registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala against the petitioners at the instance of Ranbir Singh. On 8.7.2010, the petitioners had come to Patiala to attend the Court in case FIR No. 223/2009. When it came to the notice of SI Naseeb Singh that Mahender Dhopra- petitioner was present in the Court complex, he informed ASI Tej Singh, Investigation Officer of case FIR No. 159/2010, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala to arrest him in the case. ASI Tej Singh tried to arrest Mahender Dhopra-petitioner in case FIR No. 159/2010 but in vain. Mahender Dhopra-petitioner was successful in running away from the process of law. Ultimately, it has been concluded that the allegations Crl. Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 -5- levelled by the petitioners did not stand proved and a false complaint had been filed to get benefit in the criminal case registered against them as well as to put pressure upon the Investigation Officer. To the same effect was the reply submitted by DSP, City-II, Patiala on behalf of respondent No.1 in the present petition. No reply has, however, been filed by respondent No.1 in Criminal Misc. No. M- 26473 of 2010. Learned State counsel states that the reply filed by respondent No.1 in the present petition be also treated as a reply in Criminal Misc. No. M-26473 of 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they were not associated by the police while conducting the enquiry in relation to application dated 11.6.2010. Instead, an exparte enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Report submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police(City), Patiala stands attached with the reply of respondent No.1 in the present petition. It has been stated therein that in conducting enquiry in respect of the application submitted by Mahender Dhopra- petitioner, summons No. 1314/A dated 15.7.2010 for 17.7.2010, 1329/A dated 17.7.2010 for 20.7.2010, 1360/A dated 21.7.2010 for 24.7.2010, 1379/A dated 24.7.2010 for 28.7.2010 and attendance notice No. 1405/A dated 2.8.2010 for 7.8.2010 were sent to Mahender Dhopra- petitioner. Summon No. 1314/A was also brought to the notice of the Crl. Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 -6- complainant on his mobile No. 09813180373. The other summons were not served upon the petitioner as his house was found locked but the attendance notice No. 1405/A was brought to the notice of Shankar Dhopra, brother of Mahender Dhopra-petitioner. Even said Shankar Dhopra refused to sign the same but admitted that he would bring it to the notice of his brother Mahender Dhopra. The complainant was waited but he did not come to attend the enquiry. Only the opposite party, i.e. ASI Naseeb Singh, Mandeep Singh and Investigation Officer ASI Tej Singh of FIR No. 159 dated 3.7.2010 appeared and were associated with the same. After conducting a thorough enquiry, it was concluded that the application had been submitted by Mahender Dhopra-petitioner by making false and baseless allegations. His only intention was to put pressure upon the complainants of the two FIRs and Investigation Officers dealing with those case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to explain the reason as to why Mahender Dhopra-petitioner could not associate himself with the Enquiry Officer. According to him, the police had registered a second FIR No. 159 dated 3.7.2010, under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC and he, alongwith his wife and son, was apprehending arrest at any time. Therefore, they could not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Later on, all the petitioners had moved the Court for the concession of anticipatory bail. Though the same was declined by the lower Court yet it was granted by this Court. Crl. Misc. No. M-24799 of 2010 -7- It may be that on account of registration of FIR No. 159 dated 3.7.2010 at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, all the petitioners apprehended arrest but that did not give any ground to them not to join the enquiry proceedings or atleast send a letter in this regard to the Enquiry Officer. However, they failed to do the same and, that too, in spite of the fact that they were called in the enquiry a number of times. Even Shankar Dhopra, brother of the petitioner, had been intimated about the fact of the enquiry but neither said Shankar Dhopra appeared before the Enquiry Officer nor sent any message as to why Mahender Dhopra-petitioner could not join the enquiry. As all the allegations levelled by the petitioners have been found to be false and flimsy, it cannot be said that the petitioners would not face a fair trial at Patiala or that they would be harmed if they attend the trial proceedings at Patiala. Resultantly, no case is made out for directing the transfer of the criminal case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala to any other Court. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 16, 2011 JUDGE ajay-1