CWP No. 23109 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 23109 of 2011 Date of decision 12.12.2011 SI Pavitar Singh and another . Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Munish Gupta , Advocate for the petitioners 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The petitioners who are working as Sub Inspector and Head Constable in the State of Punjab have approached this Court with a prayer for setting aside the recommendations (P.9) made by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Commission). The Commission had ordered an enquiry against them with regard to the mis-behaviour of the petitioners in respect of their motivated visit to the house of the complainant Ms. Meenakshi. It has been found that both the petitioners in inebriated state came to the house of the complainant with an attempt to take her to the police station forcibly. She was rescued by the people from the surrounding area who gathered there when she raised an alarm. At that time, she was alone at home. An attempt was also made by the petitioners to register an FIR against the husband of the complainant Ms. Meenakshi on the following day i.e. 29.4.2009 which was lateron cancelled. Accordingly, the Commission recommended that complainant be paid a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for causing her trauma by the CWP No. 23109 of 2011 2 petitioners and the Government was at liberty to deduct Rs. 15,000/- from pay of each of the petitioners. The payment was to be made to the complainant. The Commission also recommended stern departmental action against these two police officials which may be an eye opener for their colleagues. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length and are of the view that no opportunity is provided to interfere in the order passed by the Commission. Infact there is violation of statutory provisions of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1908 which imposes an obligation that if a child under the age of 15 years and a women is required as a witness then she cannot be summoned at the police station. The indecent behaviour of the petitioners is sufficient to recommend action against them. There is no merit in the petition and the same does not warrant admission. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 12.12.2011 Judge okg