CWP No.15890 of 2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15890 of 2006 Date of decision: May 19, 2009. Maninder Kaur ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri P.S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Palvinder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Shri Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent(s) No.3 & 4. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice purported to have been issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. by respondent No.5 whereby she has been asked to join an 'inquiry' instituted on the basis of a complaint made by respondents No.3 & 4 to the Additional Director General of Police, attached to the Punjab Station Human Rights Commission. [2]. The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, whereas respondents No.3 & 4 are also working as PTI teachers in the said Department. At one point of time, it CWP No.15890 of 2006 -: 2 :- appears that all of them were posted in the same school. The usual internal bickerings led to a series of complaints and counter complaints against each other. It may be noticed here that the husbands of respondents No.3 and 4 are employed as Assistant Sub Inspector and Head Constable respectively in the Punjab Police. [3]. The record further reveals that respondent No.3 made a complaint dated 14.1.2006 to the Education Minister, Punjab “regarding harassment” at the hands of the petitioner who was stated to be indulging in false complaints against the 3rd respondent and spoiling the atmosphere of the school. No specific instance of making any false complaint against respondents No.3 and 4 or any other staff member, however, was disclosed in the said complaint. It appears that the said complaint was inquired into and the inquiry officer, after visiting the school on 20.7.2006, made a report which supported the petitioner. It is thereafter that respondent No.3 made another complaint on 26.8.2006 (Annexure R-1/T) addressed to the Additional Director General of Police, Human Rights/Internal Vigilance, Punjab alleging that the inquiry officer who came to Ludhiana on 20.7.2006 was under the influence of “my opposite party” and came again “for the convenience of the opposite party to hold the inquiry”. In sum and substance, the complainant wanted to dislodge the conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer who had visited Ludhiana on 20.7.2006. This complaint also does not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner which could be termed as a violation and/or an attempt to violate the “human rights” of respondents no.3 and 4. [4]. Respondent No.5 mechanically entertained the aforesaid complaint and issued a notice to the petitioner purportedly in exercise of his CWP No.15890 of 2006 -: 3 :- powers under Section 160 Cr.P.C. calling upon her to appear at the Headquarters of Commandant, 6th Batallion, IRD Lada Kothi at Sangrur. [5]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [6]. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be struck down for more than one reasons. Firstly, the complaints dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure R-1/T) and 14.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) do not allege or disclose violation of any human right and, thus, the authorities attached to the Human Rights Commission had got no jurisdiction to entertain such like complaints. Suffice it to say that a private dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 though originated out of their official dealings, could not be a subject matter of inquiry by the Human Rights Commission and/or its agency. [7]. Secondly, the impugned notice as been issued in utter disregard to the proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:- “160. Police Officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses. (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who from, the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than CWP No.15890 of 2006 -: 4 :- the place in which such male person or woman resides. (2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub- section (1) at any place other than his residence.” (emphasis applied) [8]. The complaints (Annexure P-3 and R-1/T) do not disclose any information regarding commission of a cognizable offence which could be the subject matter of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch, the attendance of a witness under Section 160 Cr.P.C. can be required only for the purpose of investigation of a cognizable offence. The petitioner – a woman could not have been asked to attend a place where respondent No.5 is posted contrary to the proviso to Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. [9]. For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned notice served upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and respondent No.5 or any other police authority attached to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission are restrained from holding any inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the complaints, Annexures P-3 and R-1/T. [10]. No costs. May 19, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge