SHASHI THAKUR Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 103 of the Constitution of J&K State, the petitioner inter alia seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) In this petition, it has been stated that petitioner is presently serving as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID (Control Room and Surveillance Jammu); that on application of the petitioner filed in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu, the Senior Superintendent of Police, VOJ filed the status report on 29/1/2016 which was consisting of 19 leaves; that simultaneously, the Vigilance Organization Jammu was conducting probe verification in a complaint received from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister; that both the status reports which have been annexed in the petition as Annexure-A and B, sufficiently revealed involvement nexus of the public servants belonging to the police and the Revenue department for the alleged acts of omission and commission and both the Investigating Officers have strongly recommended for registration of the FIR against the accused persons; that during course of investigation on the Masavi (Latha), the revenue department's land record was noticed and found unauthentic and fake one being used for discharging official functions and it was seized by the Investigating Officer then and there on the spot. The petitioner being a whistle blower in the cause of the complaint was interested to see that the rule of law should prevail at all costs and was keen to remain in touch with updated progress of the case. In November, 2015, petitioner came to know that the verification has been submitted to the Deputy Director Prosecution (Respondent No.5) with recommendations for registering an FIR. Petitioner reached the office of VOJ and saw one Dy.SP coming out of the office of respondent No.5, that Dy.SP and other were protecting criminals; respondent No.4 assured petitioner that the FIR will be registered within a day or two and petitioner need not to bother. As no FIR was registered, petitioner after 4/5 days appeared before respondent No.4 in his office and found respondent No.5 sitting there too. Respondent No.4 told that FIR will be registered soon although they are under tremendous pressure to delay it but for your sake it will be done and petitioner was asked to get closer to respondent No.4; that respondent No.5 left the room and respondent No.4 asked the petitioner to spare sometime with him as he was desperate to have friendship with petitioner. Petitioner got nonplussed by the objectionable conduct of respondent No.4 and felt below dignity and left room forthwith; that outside the office room respondent No. 5 was waiting and he asked the petitioner take it easy and understand the situation. Again the petitioner felt her modesty and dignity being outraged. Thereafter, the petitioner never contacted respondent Nos.4 and 5; that on 16/8/2016, a written complaint was handed over to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Mr. Kuldeep Khoda at Jammu and this incident was brought to his notice also. In turn a letter dtd. 30/8/2016 was sent to respondent No. 4 by the SVC and no action taken against respondent Nos.4 and 5; that on 7/3/2017 the petitioner's statement was got recorded as per the directions of the D.G.P; that respondent No.3-DGP on the complaint of the petitioner, no FIR has been registered against the accused persons i.e., respondent Nos. 4 and 5; that the petitioner is entitled to get registered an FIR against the accused persons for commission of a cognizable offence u/s 354 and 509 of RPC; that vide communication dtd. 28/8/2014, the DGP J&K State was requested by the Chairperson, J&K State Commission for Women to order thorough investigation into the harassment met by the petitioner at work place by the police personnel, that DGP had ignored it and has not taken any action; that the petitioner is under great threat of getting harmed by any person interested to facilitate the ongoing land grabbing business by law breakers by hook or by crook.

(3.) Objections stand filed on behalf of all the respondents. Respondent No.3 in his objections has stated that the petitioner has raised mixed questions of law and facts which this court may not like to adjudicate; that on 3/1/2017 a news item under heading 'Cop demands flesh to register FIR' appeared in the local Daily Jammu Express and on the same day the answering respondent herein referred the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone, Jammu for enquiry and report. The matter was got enquired into by the IGP, Jammu Zone through Dy.SP Hqrs, Jammu. The detailed report was forwarded by the IGP, Jammu to the PHQ on 8/4/2017 in which it was observed that the allegations leveled by the petitioner herein were not substantiated during the course of enquiry. It has further been stated in the objections that the petitioner herein had lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Organization against one Zakir Hussaina and Ashiq Hussain alleging therein that they had encroached upon the Nallah/Waterbody by raising construction thereon and a false case bearing FIR No.100/2012 has been registered against her on the basis of the complaint lodged by the said persons and on the basis of said complaint verification bearing 22/2013 was registered by Vigilance Organization which was being monitored by the State Vigilance Commission and during the pendency of said verification, the petitioner approached the State Vigilance Commission vide application dtd. 16/8/2016 stating therein that enquiry officers have recommended registration of case against the erring officials and land grabbers but the Deputy Director Prosecution Vigilance and Director Vigilance have started exploiting the petitioner herein by demanding undue favour, which were refused to them. The said complaint was forwarded by the Vigilance Commission to the Director Vigilance with the direction to bring the enquiry to its logical conclusion. The verification was concluded and report was submitted to the Vigilance Commission as well as to the Anti Corruption Court, Jammu on 2/1/2017; that an application dtd. 16/8/2016 submitted by the petitioner before the State Vigilance Commission does not make a mention of sexual harassment as published in the news item; that earlier also similar allegations of harassment were leveled by the petitioner against the police officials associated with the investigation of case FIR No.100/2012 before the State Women Commission, which indicate that she is habitual of leveling allegations against the officers who do not favour her; a similar complaint was also lodged by the petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission to which a detailed report was submitted by PHQ stating therein that the land in question was property of Zakir Hussain and Ashiq Hussain and investigation conducted had prima facie established that the petitioner herein and her PSOs had demolished the old erected wall of the said land. It has further been stated that as per the report of Director Land Records the petitioner did not cooperate with the Committee headed by Director Land Records, Jammu and did not allow them to conduct measurement of the land falling with her compound and did not even provide the requisite documents to the SDM. The Enquiry Officer (Dy.SP Hqrs Jammu) has specifically mentioned as under: