Decided on January 03,2020

NIRMALA DEVI Respondents


ANOOP CHITKARA,J. - (1.)Challenging the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Sessions Court, Una, affirming the order of dismissal of complaint under Section 203 CrPC, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Una, the complainant, who is practicing as an Advocate, has come up before this Court, seeking directions to proceed against the accused- respondent, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 119, 170, 323, 355, 452, 500, 504, 506-II/149 of IPC.
(2.)The gist of the facts apposite to adjudicate the present petition traces its history to an incident, which had taken place on November 21, 1999. The complainant alleged in the complaint, filed on September 21, 2007, filed after a gap of more than seven years, as follows: -
(a) Accused No.6, Smt. Raj Rani was related to the complainant as his sister-in-law. Due to some marital discord, Panchayat of accused No. 6, mediated to settle the dispute.

(b) This settlement preceded the complaint dated Nov 1, 1999, made by Smt. Raj Rani to her Panchayat against the complainant.

(c) The Accused No.1 Smt. Nirmala Devi was president of Nagar Panchayat, Santokhgarh. She sent a notice to the father of the complainant, asking him to appear in the Nagar Panchayat Office on Nov 21, 1999, at 11.00 a.m., and also directed him to bring complainant Shri Dinesh Chander Sharma with him.

(d) The complainant, through some local person, contacted the accused Nirmala Devi and asked her to appraise the purpose of the said meeting. However, fifteen persons, who are arraigned as accused in the complaint, visited the house of the complainant at around noon.

(e) The complainant asked the Pradhan to serve upon him proper notice. Still, she refused by saying that it is unnecessary, and on this complainant declined to join the said inquiry without service of the formal notice.

(f) The first accused Nirmala Devi told the complainant that she is not bound to follow the Court procedure, and being an Advocate, the complainant was willfully evading the said inquiry.

(g) In this melee, accused No. 2 to 5; namely, Bhajan Singh Maan, Balram, Naresh Kumar, Sham Lal Chabba, and other relatives of accused Raj Rani passed various unhealthy remarks against the complainant. Accused No. 13 and 14, namely, Laxmi Devi and Kamla Devi, gave illegal threats to his life and limb.

(h) Instead of stopping these persons from indulging in these illegal acts, accused No. 1 Nirmala Devi justified the said remarks and condemned the conduct of the complainant with accused No.6.

(i) The complainant further alleged that he could see evil in the eyes of all the accused, the way they were staring at him, and it lowered his dignity.

(j) After that, accused No.1 Nirmala Devi asked the complainant to accompany her to the residence of his elder brother at Una, where his parents resided. However, the complainant refused on the ground that they have no legal authority to ask him to join the said inquiry. On this, the accused persons started to leave his house, but while moving, they used undignified remarks against him.

(k) Accused No.13, Laxmi Devi passed immoral remarks, and others did not try to restrain her.

(l) The complainant further stated that accused No. 6, 7,9,10, 13, and 14, namely, Raj Rani, Aruna Sharma, Santosh Kumari, Kamlesh, Laxmi Devi, and Kamla Devi, re-entered his house and started beating their breast to humiliate him. This conduct lowered his grace and that of their family, in public.

Accused No. 7 pounced upon him and held him from the collar of his shirt, which again lowered his dignity. Accused No. 6 gave two- three blows of slippers on his left hand, and intimidated him. The complainant clarified that only accused No. 13 condemned them.

(m) After that, the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the police and showed them their swollen left hand. However, the police did not register FIR till 10.30 p.m. due to the mischievous conduct of the Sub Inspector.

(3.)On the above facts, the complainant alleged in the complaint that accused persons committed the following acts: -
(i) The accused No.1 Smt. Nirmala Devi, the then Pradhan of Panchayat, persuaded herself to be a public servant, whereas she was not so, and thus committing an offence punishable under Section 170 IPC.

(ii) The accused No. 2, Bhajan Singh, Member of the Nagar Panchayat, abetted the offence of accused No.1 and thereby committed the same offence.

(iii) All the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, and 506 IPC, and by criminally trespassing in the house of the complainant, they also committed offence under Section 451 read with Section 149 IPC.

(iv) The accused No. 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14, namely, Raj Rani, Aruna Sharma, Santosh Kumari, Kamlesh, Laxmi Devi, and Kamla Devi, made derogatory remarks, committing offenses punishable under Section 500 and 504 IPC.

(v) Accused No. 8 and 12 Ashok Kumar and Om Prakash criminally intimidated the complainant to do away his life and limb and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506- Part II, IPC.

(vi) Accused No. 6 and 7 Raj Rani and Aruna Sharma by holding the collar of his shirt, committed an offence punishable under Section 355 IPC.

(vii) Accused No. 6 by giving him beatings with a slipper, committed an offence punishable under Section 323 and 500 IPC.

Accused No. 6 also committed an offence under Section 506 (II) IPC, by criminally intimidating him, and even an offence under Section 452 IPC by criminally trespassing the house of the complainant.

(viii) The accused No. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14, namely, Raj Rani, Aruna Sharma, Santosh Kumari, Kamlesh, Laxmi Devi, and Kamla Devi, committed an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC by beating their breast.

(ix) The accused No. 1 and 2, Nirmala Devi, and Bhajan Singh have committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 355, 452, 500, 504, and 506 IPC by keeping quite being public servants.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.