Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Crl.) NO. 218 OF 2013

Rashmi Behl  …..Petitioner(s)

versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and others      …..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

Petitioner, a young girl of 22 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  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 Pradesh Police  

1

Page 2

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 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 join the flesh  

trade/prostitution.  Upon realizing petitioner’s 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,  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,  she was then given into the  

2

Page 3

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, 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 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  

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  

3

Page 4

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  

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 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 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 Madho  and held that the petitioner being  

an adult is free to reside wherever she  decides to live.

4

Page 5

4. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the Court had  

risen, accused persons forcibly dragged her out of 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  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 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.

5. On several occasions the petitioner tried to lodge a FIR  

with regard to abduction, repeated assault and rape while  

5

Page 6

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  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 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, 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  writ  petition  

under Article 226, the petitioner has approached this Court  

6

Page 7

seeking indulgence under  Article  32 read with  142 of  the  

Constitution of India.

7. We  have  elaborately  heard  learned  counsel  for  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 of the father and family is so much that although  

the  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 jurisdiction of which most of  

the accused reside.

7

Page 8

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 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 threatening witnesses and have been on  

the look out of the petitioner since the date of lodging of the  

FIR  forcing  the  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  

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  respondents,  

learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  other  

8

Page 9

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 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.  

Hearing submissions, this Court vide order dated 30.1.2015  

directed the petitioner/prosecutrix to appear 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.

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  

9

Page 10

Court.   We have gone through the 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 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  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  were  present  including  her  father  

Ravinder Behl, Safar Borga, Ravinder Singh, Advocate, Tarun  

Behl, Reeta Behl, Roma Behl, Sanjay Aggarwal, Dharamveer  

Narang,  Inderjeet,  Harvinder  Singh,  Harsh  Behl,  Rakesh  

Vasudeva and all of them including police personnel took her  

dragging up to the main door of the Court and put her in  

10

Page 11

white colour Santro Car, which had been driven by Pawan  

Malik.   

11. In  her  statement  she  has  alleged  that  she  was  

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.  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  

Dharamveer  Narang,  Constable  Dayashankar,  DIG  Prem  

Prakash, Manish 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 the  

man  was  Dr.  B.P.  Ashok.   She  has  also  alleged  that  on  

11

Page 12

17.10.2010  Inderjeet  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, 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  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  

and was also imprisoned.  She has submitted that many I.Os.  

have changed and despite various letters written by her, no  

I.O. 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 to attend other case,  

her parents entered into the Chamber and threatened her to  

12

Page 13

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 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 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 adult is free to reside where she decides  

to 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  

13

Page 14

petitioner  made a false statement that  the 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  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  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 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  I.O.  Janak  Singh  was  

14

Page 15

transferred  and in his place one Pramod 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  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 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  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.

15

Page 16

14. One cannot ignore the fact that  still,  a class of  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  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  

prevent gender exploitation of girl children.

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.  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  

16

Page 17

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 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 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.

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  and  unbiased  

investigation.

17

Page 18

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 conclude  

the same in accordance with law.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (Shiva Kirti Singh)

New Delhi February 17, 2015

18

Page 19

ITEM NO.1B              COURT NO.11               SECTION X                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal)  No(s).  218/2013 RASHMI BEHL                                Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF U.P & ORS                          Respondent(s) [HEARD BY HON'BLE M.Y.EQBAL AND HON'BLE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,  JJ.] Date : 17/02/2015 This petition was called on for judgment  

            today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv.                     for M/s. Parekh & Co.        For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Kr. Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Pavitra Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chandan Vir, Adv.

                   for Mr. Praneet Ranjan,AOR                     Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, Adv.

for Mr. Abhisth Kumar,AOR                       

Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  M.Y.Eqbal  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble  Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.

The  writ  petition  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Indu Pokhriyal)   Court Master   Court Master

19