RASHMI BEHL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 448, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
(2015] 2 S.C.R. 448 
RASHMI BEHL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 218 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2015 
(M.Y.EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21 and 32 
- Writ Petition under Article 32 - Seeking enforcement 
of rights under Articles 14 & 21 in as much as FIR 
lodged by the petitioner u/ss. 366, 323, 504 and 376 
0 
/PC neither statements uls. 164 CrPC were recorded 
nor her medical examination uls. 164A CrPC was done 
- Petitioner alleged of her abduction, assault and rape 
by her father and his accomplices - She also alleged 
that her family was forcing her for flesh trade 
E (prostitution) and that she was forcibly taken by her 
parents alongwith others including police personnel 
from the custody of the custodian appointed by the 
Court - Statement of the petitioner recorded uls. 164 
CrPC on the direction of Supreme Court - Held: The 
F facts of the case show that police has acted in a 
partisan manner and has not investigated the case in 
a forthright manner - In view of the serious allegations 
made against the respondents as well as police 
officials, it is a fit case where investigation needs to be 
G handed over to an independent agency like CBI -
Investigation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
448
RASHMI BEHL v. STATE OF U.P. 
449 
HELD: 1. The facts, sequence of events and A 
inordinate delay in the investigation of the case 
show that the investigation by the State police 
authorities has not been conducted in a proper 
direction. More than two years have passed but the 
police failed to conclude the investigation, which B 
itself goes to show that police have not acted in a 
forthright manner in investigating the case. Prima 
facie the police has acted in a partisan manner to 
shield the real culprits and the investigation of the 
case is not being conducted in a proper and C 
objective manner. [Para 15] [459-A-C] 
2. Since local police is allegedly involved as per 
the statement of the petitioner recorded under 
Section 164 CrPC, there may not be fair D 
investigation. In such a case, however faithfully the 
local police may carry out the investigation, the 
same may lack credibility since the allegations are 
against them. In view of the entire facts of the case 
and very serious allegations made against all the E 
respondents including police officers, it is a fit case 
where the investigation has to be handed over to 
an independent agency like CBI for the purpose of 
fair and unbiased investigation. [Paras 15 and 16] F 
[459-C-F] 
R.S. Sodhi v. State of UP., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 
143 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
G 
1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 
Relied on 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No 218 of 2013 
H
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India 
B 
Pravin H. Parekh, , Lalit Chauhan, Ekansh Mishra, 
Aditya Sharma, S. Lakshmi Iyer (for Parekh & Co.) for 
the Petitioner. 
Maninder Singh, ASG, Ratnakar Dash, Kumar 
Parimal, Ranjana Narayan, M. Khairati, B. V. Bairam 
Das, Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj Choudhury, Dinesh Kr. 
Tiwary, Chandan Kumar, Jaya Kumari, R. C. Aggarwal, 
C Rajesh Tiwary, Praneet Ranjan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y.EQBAL, J. 1. Petitioner, a young girl of 22 
D years who hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh, has 
filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution 
of India for the enforcement of her fundamental rights 
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution 
of India inasmuch as even though her FIR was 
E registered on 21.1.2013 neither statements of the 
petitioner or her witnesses had been recorded nor her 
medical examination under Section 164A of the 
Criminal Procedure Code had been done by the Uttar 
F Pradesh Police despite repeated notices and reminders 
sent to the authorities. Petitioner has alleged to the 
extent that she was abducted, repeatedly assaulted and 
raped by her own father and his accomplices for not 
accepting their demand to enter the flesh trade in which 
G her family is actively involved. 
2. The writ petition before us shows that the ordeal 
of the petitioner began in the year 2010 when the father 
and her family
alleged to have started coercing her to 
H
RASHMI BEHL v. STATE OF U.P. 
451 
[M.Y.EQBAL, J.] 
join the flesh trade/prostitution. Upon realizing petitioner's A 
unwillingness, father and the family tried to sell her off to 
an elderly man of about 65 to 70 years in Punjab. Upon 
becoming aware of the nefarious designs of the accused 
persons, petitioner somehow managed to escape from 
her parental home in Meerut and escaped to Haridwar, 
8 
from where she was brought back by some Samaritans 
to the office of DIG Meerut, where she narrated her 
ordeal. Petitioner was sent to the custody of her parents 
with a stern warning, which was not complied. As such, C 
she was then given into the custody of Ms. Asha Madho, 
who was an ex-teacher of the petitioner. However, in the 
midnight of 1/2.9.2011 in the absence of the custodian, 
her parents along with their relatives with police 
assistance said to have forcibly took her away. Thereafter, 
D 
petitioner complained to the Police that she was held in 
captivity by her father and anything can happen to her in 
such circumstances. Taking action on the said letter, the 
SHO produced the petitioner before the City Magistrate 
on 5.9.2011, where the petitioner stated that she was a E 
major and should be allowed to stay free as per her 
wishes and her custody should not be given to her father 
and family. Father of the petitioner also moved an 
application before the City Magistrate stating that his F 
daughter was mentally unstable on which an order was 
passed to refer the
petitioner to a hospital for mental 
medical examination, in which she was declared mentally 
sound. The City Magistrate passed an order giving the 
custody of the petitioner to Ms. Asha Madho. It was also G 
ordered that Ms. Asha Madho will produce the petitioner 
before the Court as and when required. 
3. Aggrieved by the order, father of the petitioner 
H
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A preferred a Revision Petition before the Additional 
District Judge, Meerut seeking custody of the petitioner. 
Petitioner was produced before the court and when being 
asked about her choice, she refused to go with her father 
and told the court that her father had earlier raped her 
8 and wanted to sell her. By way of a letter Ms. Asha Madho 
showed her unwillingness to take custody of the petitioner 
on the ground of her own sickness and criminal 
background of petitioner's parents. Hence, the petitioner 
c further showed her desire to go along with Ms. Aparna 
Gautam, sister-in-law of Ms. Asha Madho. On 15.10.2011, 
the Additional District Judge partly allowed the revision 
petition and set aside order dated 16.9.2011 regarding 
the custody of the petitioner being given to Ms. Asha 
D Madho and held that the petitioner being an adult is free 
to reside wherever she decides to live. 
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the Court 
had risen, accused persons forcibly dragged her out of 
E the Court and took her to various places within Meerut 
and thereafter to Ludhiyana, Punjab, and throughout this 
period the petitioner was repeatedly assaulted and raped 
by her father and his accomplices. Subsequently, in 
November 2011, Mrs. Aparna Gautam filed a writ of 
F Habeas Corpus before the Allahabad High Court. 
Consequently, the petitioner was produced before the 
High Court on 16.1.2012, where she gave details of
assault, rape and abduction. On 30.1.2012, consequent 
G to petitioner's statement, learned Single Judge of the 
High Court disposed of the writ petition setting her at 
liberty to go anywhere including the opportunity to go 
along with Mrs. Aparna Gautam. 
H 
5. On several occasions the petitioner tried to lodge
RASHMI BEHL v. STATE OF U.P. 
453 
[M.Y.EQBAL, J.] 
a FIR with regard to abduction, repeated assault and A 
rape while she was in illegal custody of the 
respondents. On 16.1.2013, the petitioner wrote a 
complaint to the SSP Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for 
registering her FIR against the respondents. On 
21.01.2013, finally FIR No.31/2013 was registered B 
against the respondents under Sections 366, 323, 504 
and 376 of IPC at Lisadi Gate Police Station, Meerut 
instead of Civil Lines Police Station. 
6. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel C 
appearing for the petitioner, contended that all the 
relevant sections applicable to the present case have 
not been applied by the police and neither statement of 
the petitioner had been recorded nor medical 
examination was done as per mandate of Section 164A, D 
Cr.P.C. Since no action had been taken by the police 
against the named accused nor any security had been 
provided to the petitioner despite grave and imminent 
threat to her life and liberty and she being not in a 
position to approach Allahabad High Court by way of E 
writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner has 
approached this Court seeking indulgence under Article 
32 read with 142 of the Constitution of India. 
7. We have elaborately heard learned counsel for F 
the parties. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the 
petitioner was first abducted from the house of the 
custodian Ms. Asha Madho and second time
from the 
court premises with the active connivance of the police 
officials. The accused persons are influential people 
and certain police officers (who are also named in FIR) 
are also actively involved with the family. The influence 
G 
of the father and family is so much that although the H
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A petitioner was abducted from the Court premises 
situated under the jurisdiction of Civil Line Police 
Station, Meerut, yet the accused managed to get the 
FIR recorded not in the Civil Line Police Station but at 
the Lisadi Gate Police Station, Meerut, within 
B jurisdiction of which most of the accused reside. 
8. Mr. Parekh further contended that due to the 
influence of the accused persons, the investigation in 
the case has not even begun, which has resulted in 
C disappearance of material evidence including medical 
examination report under 164A of Cr.P.C. which ought 
to have been done after being raped. Learned senior 
counsel further contended that accused persons are 
roaming free influencing and delaying investigation and 
D threatening witnesses and have been on the look out 
of the petitioner since the date of lodging of the FIR 
forcing Hie petitioner to be in hiding under imminent 
threat to her life and liberty. On account of this, the 
petitioner is hiding in Delhi, but is prevented from freely 
E going out in Delhi or going to place of lodging of FIR 
(Meerut) and it has forced her to knock the doors of 
the Apex Court by hiding her in Delhi. 
9. After the notice was served upon the 
F respondents, learned counsel for the State of Uttar 
Pradesh and other respondents appeared and the 
matter was heard. From the side of the petitioner, it 
was submitted that no steps have been taken for 
recording the statement
of the petitioner under Section 
G 164, Cr.P.C. 
Whereas learned senior counsel 
appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh contended 
that despite all efforts, the petitioner is not making her 
appearance for the purpose of recording statements. 
H Hearing submissions, this Court vide order dated
RASHMI BEHL v. STATE OF U.P. 
455 
[M.Y.EQBAL, J.] 
30.1.2015 directed the petitioner/prosecutrix to appear A 
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saket Courts, 
Saket, New Delhi along with her photograph and one 
person to identify her on 31.1.2015 so that her 
statement shall be recorded by the Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, who shall forward the same to this Court. 
B 
10. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the 
petitioner appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
and her statement was recorded and the same was 
forwarded to this Court. 
We have gone through the C 
statement made by the petitioner before the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate. In her statement, she has made 
serious allegations against her father allegedly 
committing rape since 2007. She also stated that when 
she was residing with her Asha Madam, her parents D 
along with many persons including Police personnel 
(which did not have any lady police) forcibly took her 
away from there to the Police Station, from where she 
was handed over to her parents. She stated that her 
parents used to misbehave with her. She has also E 
stated that on 15.10.2011, after the decision of the 
Magistrate declaring her major and could reside at her 
will, her aunt Anjana Malik and Ranjana Vasudeva 
dragged her outside Court, where more than 15 persons 
F 
were present including her father Ravinder Behl, Safar 
Borga, Ravinder Singh, Advocate, Tarun Behl, Reeta 
Behl, Roma Behl, Sanjay Aggarwal, Dharamveer 
Narang,
lnderjeet, Harvinder Singh, Harsh Behl, Rakesh 
Vasudeva and all of them including police personnel G 
took her dragging up to the main door of the Court and 
put her in white colour Santro Car, which had been 
driven by Pawan Malik. 
11. In her statement she has alleged that she was H
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A kidnapped and taken to the house of her aunt (Bhuwa) 
and then to the house of Harsh Behl, where she was 
abused and her father forcing her for prostitution told 
that in their business goods once sold is never taken 
back and they are bound to hand it over dead or alive. 
B Harsh Behl stated to her that they would have also 
kidnapped Aparna Gautam if gathering would not have 
saved her. Thereafter, Harsh Behl raped her. She has 
also alleged sexual assault by Dhararnveer Narang, 
Constable Dayashankar, DIG Prem Prakash, Manish 
C Mishra, Sunny Ahuja, Deshraj Ahuja, Tilak Narang and 
Toofan alias Raj Kumar. She amended her statement 
saying that name of Manish Mishra was taken by 
mistake as he was not present there and the name of 
D the man was Dr. B.P. Ashok. She has also alleged that 
on 17.10.2010 lnderjeet and Harvinder raped her in the 
presence of Preety Khurana and Urmila Kathuria, who 
did not save her despite repeated prayer. Thereafter, 
she was taken to Ludhiyana, where as alleged by her, 
E father used to rape her. Upon filing of Habeas Corpus 
petition by Aparna Gautam, she was produced by her 
parents in the High Court, where she stated that she 
did not want to go with her parents since she was 
being raped by her father and his accomplices. She 
F has also alleged that when Aparna Gautam had gone 
to DIG with a request letter to meet petitioner, DIG 
physically assaulted her and when she was conversing 
with
Media at the Commissioner Square, she was taken 
away by the police and implicated her in false case 
G and was also imprisoned. She has submitted that many 
I.Os. have changed and despite various letters written 
by her, no 1.0. turned up even on 18.3.2014, when she 
was sitting in the Chambers of her advocate in the 
Saket Courts. However, when her advocate had gone 
H
RASHMI BEHL v. STATE OF U.P. 
457 
[M.Y.EQBAL, J.] 
to attend other case, her parents entered into the A 
Chamber and threatened her to keep quite. She stated 
that her Parvikar Aparna Gautam is being harassed 
since she helped her. 
12. As noticed above, as against the order passed 
B 
by the City Magistrate on 5.9.2011, before whom the 
petitioner has stated that she was a major and should 
be allowed to stay free as per her wishes, the father of 
the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 
Additional District Judge,Meerut seeking custody of the C 
petitioner on the ground that she was mentally unstable. 
The Additional District Judge by setting aside the order 
of the City Magistrate regarding custody of the petitioner 
being given to Mrs. Asha Madho held that the petitioner 
being an adu.lt is free to reside where she decides to D 
live. The City Magistrate, before passing the aforesaid 
order, got the petitioner medically examined in which 
she was declared mentally sound. The Additional 
District Judge in revisional order had observed that the 
father of the petitioner made a false statement that the E 
petitioner was mentally unfit. 
13. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf 
of Respondents nos.1 to 4 - State of Uttar Pradesh, 
Director General of Police, Deputy General of Police F 
and Senior Superintendent of Police would show that 
after the case was registered being Crime Case No.31/ 
2013, one Rajbir Singh, SI Lisadi Gate Police Station,
Meerut, was entrusted with the case for investigation. 
So far the serious allegations made by the petitioner G 
against the respondents including the police officials 
are concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that 
those allegations are subject matter of investigation. 
Admittedly, no action was taken against the persons H
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A who have allegedly committed crime. On the basis of 
complaint, in March, 2013, the investigation was 
entrusted to another SI Janak Singh Pundir, SIS Cell, 
Meerut. Two months thereafter, the said 1.0. Janak 
Singh was transferred and in his place one Pramod 
B Kumar Singh, S.I., Crime Branch, Meerut was entrusted 
with the case for investigation in June, 2013. Again in 
August, 2013, the investigation was entrusted to 
another SI Yogender Dikshit, Crime Branch, Meerut. It 
is stated in the counter affidavit that the Investigating 
C Officer was transferred from Crime Branch to Police 
Station Durala, District Meerut. This itself shows that 
the allegations made by the petitioner in the FIR 
followed by several complaints was never taken 
0 seriously by the police authorities and in a routine 
manner the investigation was entrusted to SI police 
one after another. Moreover, the respondents in the 
counter affidavit tried to justify the reason for not taking 
steps for the purpose of recording the statement of the 
E petitioner victim under Section 164, Cr. P. C. and also 
failure in medically examining the petitioner as required 
under Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
14. One cannot ignore the fact that still, a class of 
F women is trapped as victims of circumstances-; 
unfounded social sanctions, handicaps and coercive 
forms in the flesh trade, optimised as 'prostitutes'. The 
victims of the trap are the
poor, illiterate and ignorant 
sections of the society and are the target group in the 
G flesh trade; rich communities exploit them and harvest 
at their misery and ignominy in an organised 
gangsterism, in particular, with police nexus. It is of 
grave social concern, increasingly realised by 
enlightened public spirited sections of the society to 
H
RASHMI BEHL v. STATE OF U.P. 
459 
[M.Y.EQBAL, J.] 
prevent gender exploitation of girl children. 
A 
15. Having regard to the facts, sequence of events 
and inordinate delay in the investigation of the case, it 
would show that the investigation by the State police 
authorities is not being conducted in a proper direction. B 
More than two years have passed but the police failed 
to conclude the investigation, which itself goes to show 
that police have not acted in a forthright manner in 
investigating the case. Prima facie the police has acted 
in a partisan manner to shield the real culprits and the C 
investigation of the case is not being conducted in a 
proper and objective manner. Since local police is 
allegedly involved as per the statement of the petitioner 
recorded under Section 164, there may not be fair 
investigation. In R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P., 1994 D 
Supp (1) SCC 143, this Court in such a case observed 
that however faithfully the local police may carry out 
the investigation, the same may lack credibility since 
the allegations are against them. 
E 
16. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the 
case and very serious allegations made against all the 
respondents including police officers, it is a fit case 
where the investigation has to be handed over to an 
independent agency like CBI for the purpose of fair F 
and unbiased investigation. 
17. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the 
Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate
the case 
independently and in an objective manner and to G 
conclude the same in accordance with law. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Writ Petition allowed. 
H