Criminal Writ Petition No.3598 of 2010

2nd March, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Ms. MALLIKA INGALE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. H. J. DEDHIA, Mr. TAUSEEF, AMIN SOLKAR

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- The facts disclosed by this petition should shock conscience of any citizen. For a more sensitive citizen it may even lead to loss of faith in the police machinery. The petition essentially seeks further investigation into the complaint being C.C. No.2402304/PW/2009 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali. The petitioner, who is the victim of the incident alleged in the complaint, had filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was dismissed by the order dated 15th June, 2010. Hence, the present petition.

2. One more relief sought by way of amendment of the petition is for institution of criminal proceedings against respondents no.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 211 and 218 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Mrs. Ingale, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, restricted the petition to the direction for further inquiry stating that she will file appropriate separate proceedings for the reliefs sought against respondents no. 2 to 5 who have been impleaded to the petition by amendment.

3. The facts alleged in the petition are as follows :

The petitioner is a student of law. She is also involved in the business of fashion designing carried on from Gala No.2 Ambewadi, near Gurudwara, Peddar Road, Malad in the name and style of 'Dani Enterprises'. On 11th May, 2009 the petitioner had alerted Mr. Shelar, officer from Anti-Narcotic Cell that one Noorjahan Sayed Gani, a resident of the same locality was involved in selling Narcotic substances. Based on the information, raid was conducted by Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cell (for short referred to as "NDPS Cell"). On the next day i.e. on 12th May, 2010 Noorjahan and her daughter Nasreen accosted the petitioner and threatened her with dire consequences for complaining to the NDPS Cell, Mumbai. Both also threatened to implicate her in a false case and ruin her life. The petitioner, therefore, immediately lodged a complaint dated 13th May, 2009 in writing with the Commissioner of Police, Crawford Market, Senior Police Inspector, Dindoshi Police Station and Senior Police Inspector Anti-Narcotic Cell.

4. On 14th May, 2009, after closing her shop when the petitioner was about to leave for her home, her next door neighbour one Prabhavati Yadav invited her for a cup of coffee. Until the coffee came from a nearby tea stall, the petitioner and Prabhavati were waiting near the gates of Sapna Building adjoining to the petitioner's shop. Suddenly, four men i.e. Shiv Bahadur Singh, Motu Shiv Bahadur Singh, Dinbandhu Shiv Bahadur Singh and Ketan Shiv Bahadur Singh came there and brutally assaulted the petitioner with iron rods, fist blow and kicks. The petitioner alleges that all the four persons pulled her hair and repeatedly slapped her, kicked her on abdomen and other vital parts of body. They punched her face and head. They then dragged her to the house of Shivbahadur Singh where Asha Shiv Bahadur Singh, Nasreen Hussain and Noorjahan Gani joined in the assault on her. The petitioner was repeatedly hit with iron rod on her forehead, hands and legs. She started bleeding profusely from her head. All the assailants had even tried to disrobe the petitioner. They tore part of her kurti but could not manage to remove her jean pants. Though the incident was happening in a public place, nobody came to her rescue. The petitioner lost consciousness and fell down. She regained her consciousness on the next day in Bhagwati Hospital, Borivali. She had been brought to the hospital by Bhanudas Sawant, Head Constable (B.No. 22679) of Dindoshi Police Station, on the earlier day at about 7.30 p.m. Apparently, Bhanudas Sawant did not give immediate report of the incident to his police station. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 19th May 2009. According to her, she was forcibly discharged from the hospital even before her recovery. During her stay of 5 days in the hospital, no police visited her to record her statement. Therefore, after her discharge the petitioner went to Dindoshi Police Station to enquire about her case, where she learnt that C.R. No.121 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with 34 Indian Penal Code had been registered at the instance of Bhanudas Sawant against (i) Asha, (ii) Noorjahan and (iii) Reshma. At the police station, Senior Inspector of Police handed over a parcel to her. The parcel contained her blood soaked clothes, ring and other articles. At the police station, she also learnt that there was an F.I.R. registered against her vide C.R. No. 122 of 2009 under Section 324 Indian Penal Code on the complaint of Reshma Shaikh alleging that the petitioner had injured her by throwing a stone at her. The petitioner was immediately arrested and produced before the 24th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Borivali and released on bail of Rs.3,000/-.

5. The incident of assault on the petitioner had been published in newspapers on 18th May 2009. Acting thereon, a social activist by name Mohan Krishnan of N.G.O., - National Anti-Corruption & Crime Preventive Council met her in the hospital and later addressed various letters to the Police and politicians requesting them to look into the matter and do justice. Only, thereafter the police moved themselves into action and did some investigation and while filing the chargesheet on 12th February, 2010 included the names of Shivbahadur Shankar Singh, Montu Shivbahadur Singh, Dinbandhu Shivbahadur Singh, Ketan Shivbahadur Singh and Nasreen as accused.

6. The complaint as filed by Bhanudas Sawant was that when he reached the place of the incident, the petitioner was conscious. She informed him that there was a quarrel between the petitioner on the one side and Asha Shivbahadur Singh, Noorjahan Sayed Gani and Reshma Kamil Shaikh on the other side over drawing of water from the common tap. In the quarrel, Asha had hit the petitioner with an iron rod on her head. According to the complaint, after giving this information to Bhanudas, the petitioner had lost consciousness and was taken to Bhagwati Hospital. She was taken to the hospital at about 7.30 p.m. The petitioner contends that the statement of Bhanudas in the F.I.R. that she was conscious when he reached the spot and that she had disclosed information regarding the incident to him is a false statement. The petitioner noticed that the F.I.R. had been registered at about 10 p.m, without a single step in investigation, not even of drawing spot panchanama.

7. After the social worker addressed letters to different authorities, the statement of the petitioner was shown recorded by PSI, Chaudhari as late as 21st May 2009. The spot panchanama came to be conducted on 2nd June 2009 and statements of witnesses, one Pappu Vitthal Dattani, Suresh Gautam Jarade, Santosh Rajaram Pariyat, Surendra Ramnarayan Singh and one Markande Baba Prasad were recorded. Pappu Dattani and Suresh Jarade identified in their statement the common tap. Santosh Pariyat stated to have witnessed the assault by Asha Singh with iron rod on the forehead of the petitioner, while the women were quarreling for the water near common tap. Surendra Kumar stated that the quarrel had taken place because the complainant had removed drum of Asha Shivbahadur Singh. Markand Baba Prasad stated that the police had arrived when the quarrel was in progress. The police also showed the statement of Prabhavati recorded on 2nd June 2009 by P.S.I., Chaudhari. In her statement, Prabhavati is alleged to have witnessed that Asha Singh had hit the petitioner on her head in the dispute over common water tap.

8. The petitioner alleges that her statement shown to have been recorded on 21st May 2009 and statement of Prabhavati shown to have been recorded on 2nd June 2009, recorded by the same police officer, PSI Chaudhari, are false statements. These statements were never made by them to the Police. The second statement of both these persons came to be recorded on 25th June 2009 and 3rd July 2009 respectively. In her subsequent statement, Prabhavati has categorically said that she had not given any statement prior to 3rd July, 2009. The statement of Bhanudas Sawant is alleged to be false in one more respect and that is the involvement of Reshma Shaikh. According to the petitioner, Reshma Shaikh was not involved in the incident of assault. The second statement of the petitioner which according to her is the only statement made by her to the police was not earlier included in the chargesheet. It came to be included subsequently pursuant to the order passed on 4th July, 2011 in the present petition. The second statement of Prabhavati is yet to be included in the chargesheet.

9. The petitioner also learnt that while admitting the petitioner in Bhagwati Hospital, the nurse had handed over her clothes to one Shahji Nivrutti Ghodke, Police Constable (B.No.22679), Dindoshi Police Station. Her articles included the torn and blood soaked clothes. The statement of the constable recorded does not mention that the clothes were soaked in blood. The further information received by the petitioner obtained under Right to Information Act shows that accused no.2, Noorjahan and accused No.8 Nasreen are involved in complaints registered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (hereinafter referred to as "N.D.P.S.") Act as well as Indian Penal Code.

10. As regards C.R. No. 122 of 2009 filed at the instance of Reshma alleging that in a dispute over common water tap, the petitioner had assaulted Reshma with a stone, the petitioner submits that the same is an absolutely false complaint registered at the behest of the accused with an intention of shielding the accused persons. The petitioner points out that as per the FIR, the incident had taken place at about 6.30 p.m. after which Reshma had immediately gone to Bhagwati Hospital for treatment with her husband. However, as per the medical certificate which is part of the chargesheet today, Reshma was brought to the hospital by a police constable at about 8.05 p.m. The FIR was registered at 11.10 p.m. Mrs. Ingale, argues that the FIR is an obviously got-up document, prepared by the police with an intention to cover up the illegal acts of the accused. She points out that Reshma was arrested at 10.00 p.m. in C.R No. 121 of 2009. Therefore, at the time of registration of C.R No. 122 of 2009 she was in custody. The fact of Reshma being in custody, is nowhere on record in C.R. No.122 of 2009.

11. The petitioner's woos were not over even after facing the assault and prosecution at the instance of Reshma. Based on the solitary incident alleged in C.R. No. 122 of 2009 against the petitioner, the police initiated proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code by filing Chapter Case No. 49 of 2009 in Court Case No. 104 of 2009. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dindoshi Police Station before whom the chapter case was initiated, started calling the petitioner every alternate day and making her wait from 4.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. only to tell her to come on the next alternate day. This went on from 31st August, 2009 to 3rd March, 2010. The petitioner finally filed Revision Application bearing No. 17 of 2010 before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. By the order dated 3rd March, 2010 the Sessions Court has called for records and proceedings of the chapter case from the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Revision Application is still pending.

12. Ms. Ingale, submits that the petitioners' is a singular case of being hounded not just by persons with criminal antecedents engaged in illegal activities, but, also by the police, who are the protectors and enforcers of law. She submits that, the shoddy investigation into C.R. No. 121 of 2009 has been deliberate to protect the accused persons. She points out that in the statement recorded by police in C.R. No. 121 of 2009 none of the witnesses have mentioned that the petitioner had assaulted Reshma on her head with a brick. This would, prima-facie, mean that either the complaint in C.R No. 122 of 2009 is false or the statements of witnesses recorded in C.R. No. 121 of 2009 who claim to have witnessed the incident that had taken place on 14th May, 2010 is false. Ms. Ingale, refers to the second statement of Prabhavati in which she has categorically stated that she had not made any statement to the police prior to 3rd July, 2010. In her statement dated 3rd July, 2010 Prabhavati has supported the version of the incident of the petitioner in her statement dated 25th June, 2009. The second statement of the petitioner and Prabhavati was recorded by P.I. Supale to whom the investigation had been handed over after hearing of protest on behalf of the petitioner.

13. The complete inefficiency and neglect on the part of the concerned officers can be seen from one more fact. Witness-Prabhavati had been complaining to the police of the threats being given to her by the accused persons. When no action was taken on the complaints, Prabhavati had to leave Mumbai and go to her native place. Her first letter on the threats given to her by the accused is dated 8th March, 2010 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. It was received by the office on the same day. The letter narrates the harassment to her by the accused persons and the threats given to her. As per the letter, she had been suffering the harassment for almost 6 months. The letter specifically referred to the support given to the accused persons by the local police. Her second letter is dated 9th March, 2010 addressed to DCP, Dahisar, Zone-XII and the third letter is to North Region Police, Kandivali (East) dated 19th March, 2010. Copy of the third letter was forwarded to Senior P.I. All the letters were received by the respective addressees on the very day. It is unfortunate that none of the police authorities took the complaint in the letters seriously. Infact, it is not known whether any action was taken at all on the complaints.

14. The serious lapses noted in the investigation so far by the police can be enumerated as follows :

(i) Though the petitioner was brought to the hospital after the incident by Head Constable, Bhanudas Sawant there was no immediate report of the incident to the police station.

(ii) The panchanama of the place of incident, a public place, was not prepared immediately, as a consequence of which, probably valuable evidence is lost. The panchanama was conducted 15 days after the incident.

(iii) There was failure to seize torn clothes of the petitioner though the same had been handed over to the police at the hospital.

(iv) There was failure to annex the entire medical papers relating to the treatment given to the petitioner to the chargesheet.

(v) The statement of the petitioner was not recorded in the hospital, at the earliest. Infact, it was not recorded until she made representation. It came to be recorded only on 25th June, 2009 i.e. more than 1 and ½ months after the incident.

(vi) The statement of the petitioner was not annexed to the chargesheet filed in the Court.

(vii) The two statements of the petitioner and Prabhavati annexed to the chargesheet were allegedly never made by them.

(viii) The statement of the petitioner dated 25th June, 2009 was not initially annexed to the chargesheet. It came to be annexed only after a direction from this Court. The second statement of Prabhavati does not form part of the chargesheet till date.

(ix) The statements of the petitioner and Prabhavati are seen to be recorded at the police station, despite specific bar under Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code, which requires statements of these two women to be recorded at their residence.

15. In view of the gross deficiencies in the investigation by the police, request of the petitioner for further investigation ought to have been accepted by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Dedhia in fairness, as an officer of the Court concedes that there are material deficiencies in the investigation by the officers of the Dindoshi Police Station into C.R. No. 121 of 2009 and that in the interest of justice, there must be further investigation into the complaint. Ms. Ingale points out that directions for investigation by another officer of the same Police Station or for that matter anybody from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-XII would not serve the purpose, since the petitioner had already approached these authorities. They had merely summoned her for interrogation and not taken any constructive step for redressal of the grievance. She was summoned by the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-XII, Dahisar on 18th June 2009, Dindoshi Police Station on 25th June 2009 and 29th June 2009, office of North Region Division, Kandvli (East) on 30th June 2009. At Dindoshi Police Station though her further statements were recorded, the same was not even included in the chargesheet filed. In these circumstances, the investigation is required to be entrusted to the State C.I.D.

16. The gross facts of the case also call for action against the concerned officers dealing with the complaint. Mr. Dedhia, has furnished three names of the officers who have dealt with the complaint. They are PSI, M.H. Chaudhari, the first Investigation Officer, PSI Anant Abhang, the second Investigation Officer and P.I., Rameshwar Supale, all of Dindoshi Police Station. These may not be the only persons concerned with the investigation and there is a possibility of others being involved. A detailed enquiry into the manner in which C.R. No. 121 of 2009 was investigated must be held and suitable action against them taken.

17. The petition is partly allowed. The State-C.I.D. Superintendent of Police, Pune is directed to appoint any subordinate officer for investigation into C.R. No.121 of 2009 and have the investigation conducted under his supervision. After completion of the investigation, further chargesheet may be filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali.

18. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai shall cause an enquiry to be made into the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the three officers i.e. PSI, M.H. Chaudhari, the first Investigation Officer, PSI Anant Abhang, the second Investigation Officer and P.I., Rameshwar Supale of Dindoshi Police Station and any other person into C.R. No. 121 of 2009 and take appropriate departmental action against them.

Petition partly allowed.