AJAY TEWARI, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions as both of them have arisen out of a common FIR. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) BY way of CRM -M No. 34485 of 2012, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 200 dated 24.12.2011 (Annexure -16) registered under Sections 354, 506, 509 IPC, at Police Station Phillour, District Jalandhar. The allegations are that the complainant is the wife of one Harminder Singh Johal and there are many litigations, both civil and criminal, pending between them. The brother of Harminder Singh Johal (petitioner herein) has been accused of trying to force the complainant to compromise the issue and on 08.12.2011, apart from offence under Sections 506, 509 IPC one of two unknown persons accompanying the petitioner(in the court complex) also outraged the modesty of the daughter of the complainant by 'pressing her breast'. The precise argument raised in this petition is that the allegation regarding Section 354 IPC was fraudulently and illegally added and in fact, the complaint dated 20.12.2011 in this regard is a pre -dated document which has been infused in the record subsequently. Apart from the said argument, to corroborate this assertion the petitioner averred in para 6 (ix) of the petition as follows: - "That as even after the supplementary statements of respondents No. 4 and 5 dated 21.12.2011 recorded in the second enquiry, no offence was made out against the petitioner, shockingly an antedated and fabricated supplementary statement of respondent No.5 dated 20.12.2011 was introduced. As the enquiry report dated 21.12.2011 does not refer to any such statement dated 20.12.2011, it is clear that the same is an antedated and fabricated document prepared after the report dated 21.12.2011. In the alleged statement dated 20.12.2011 major improvements were made by responders No.5 in her previous statement dated 16.12.2011 and 21.12.2011.It was alleged in this fabricated statement that on 8.12.2011 two unknown persons had accompanied the petitioner at Court complex, Phillaur and one of them touched her breast and pulled her towards himself and said she should go to abroad with them. It is further shocking that this occurrence within the court complex and outside the court room goes unnoticed by the court staff,police men and litigants present outside the court room. Respondent No.5 further stated that she is now telling the correct facts with regard to the occurrence dated 8.12.2011. The copy of the fabricated and antedated statement of Davinder Kaur dated 20.12.2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure P -14."
(3.) IN reply to this sub para the State has averred as follows: - " That the contents of sub para No. ix of the petition are wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that the concerned police never fabricated the statement of respondents No. 4 and 5 in the case in hand. The concerned police acted in accordance with law in the case in hand. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had committed unlawful acts alleged against him by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5." ;