RASHMI BEHL Vs STATE OF U.P & ORS
Bench: M.Y. EQBAL,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: Writ Petition (crl.) 218 of 2013
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
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