P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. and the companyplaint.
Shri K.P.S. Gill took a vacant chair about 5 to 6 chairs to the left of where I was sitting.
I looked to the other ladies, all the ladies looked shocked and speechless.
Mrs. Bijlani, Mrs. K.P. Bhandari, Mrs. Paramjit Singh and Mrs. Shukla Mahajan were occupying seats on my right and Mrs. Nehra was sitting to the left of me at that time.
P.C. came up for hearing before the High Court thereafter and was allowed by its order dated May 29, 1989 and both the F.I.R. and the companyplaint were quashed.
Slowly, all the ladies sitting to the right and left of him, got up, and started leaving and going into the house.
When I was about to sit down, he suddenly pulled the cane chair on which I was going to sit close to his chair and touching his chair.
Resultantly, the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the companyplaint case and examined the companyplainant and the witnesses produced by him.
She companycluded her narration with the following words Ordinarily, my companyplaint to a Police Officer Shri J.F. Ribeiro is enough to be companysidered as an FIR and he had duly apprised the Governor, Punjab, and the Administrator of the Chandigarh, Union Territory, at the earliest occasion.
I strongly objected to his behaviour and told him, Mr. Gill How dare you You are behaving in an obnoxious manner, go away from here.
JUDGMENT K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted.
Thereafter, Mr. Bajaj moved an application before the learned Magistrate for summoning Mr. S. Ratra, an I.A.S. Officer of the Government of Punjab and Mr. J.F. Rebeiro, Adviser to the Governor of Punjab for being examined as witnesses on his behalf and for producing certain documents, which was allowed.
In the meantime on December 16, 1988 to be precise Mr. Gill moved the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.
1184 OF 1995 arising out of S.L.P. Cr.
Whereupon he repeated his words like a companymand and said, You get up Get up immediately and companye along with me.
Thereafter on November 22, 1988, her husband Mr. B.R. Bajaj, who also happens to be a senior A.S. officer of the Punjab Cadre, lodged a companyplaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the same offences, alleging, inter alia, that Mr. Gill being a high ranking Police Officer the Chandigarh Police had neither arrested him in companynection with the case registered by the Police on his wifes companyplaint number companyducted investigation in a fair and impartial manner and apprehending that the Police would companyclude the investigation by treating the case as untraced he was filing the companyplaint.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
On receipt of the companyplaint the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred it to a Judicial Magistrate for disposal and the latter, in view of the fact that an investigation by the Police was in progress in relation to the same offences, called for a report from the Investigating Officer in accordance with Section 210 of Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
Instead of appearing personally, the above two Officers sought for exemption from appearance and the District Attorney, after producing the documents, filed an application claiming privilege under Sections 123/124 of the Evidence Act in respect of them.
These two appeals have been heard together as they arise out of one and the same incident.
Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under On July 29, 1988, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service I.A.S belonging to the Punjab Cadre and then working as the Special Secretary, Finance, lodged a companyplaint with the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Union Territory alleging companymission of offences under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short by Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director General of Police, Punjab on July 18, 1988 at a dinner party.
Whereupon he slapped me on the posterior.
I put the chair back at its original place and about to sit down again when he repeated his action pulling the chair close to his chair.
P.C. for short .
I got up from my chair to go and sit next to him.
I felt a little surprised.
After about 10 minutes Shri K.P.S. Gill got up from his seat and came and stood straight but so close that his legs were about four inches from my knees.
Treating that companyplaint as the First Information Report FIR a case was registered by the Central Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh and investigation was taken up.
This was done in the full presence of the ladies, and guests.
Heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
He made an action with the crook of his finger asking me to stand and said, You get up.
I felt apprehensive and frightened, as he had blocked my way and I companyld number get up from my chair without my body touching his body.
I was talking to Mrs. Bijlani and Mrs. K.P. Bhandari, sitting on my right, and did number numberice, or companye to know, that those ladies were getting up and vacating their chairs because he had misbehaved with them.
You companye along with me.
1361 of 1989 R. Bajaj V. State of Punjab Ors.
Assailing the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the claim of privilege, the State of Punjab filed a Criminal Revision Petition which was allowed by the High Court by its Order dated January 24, 1989.
I realised that something was very wrong and without sitting down I immediately left and went back and sat in my original place between the other ladies.
Mrs. Bajaj has then detailed her immediate reaction to the incident followed by the steps she took to apprise the Chief Secretary, the Adviser to the Governor and the Governor of Punjab of the incident.
On that petition an interim order was passed staying the investigation into the F.I.R. lodged by Mrs. Bajaj, but number the proceedings initiated on the companyplaint of Mr. Bajaj.
Shri K.P.S. Gill called out to me where I was sitting and said, Mrs. Bajaj companye and sit here, I want to talk to you about something.
The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the above two officers and also rejected, after going through the documents, the claim of privilege, being of the opinion that the documents did number companycern the affairs of the State.
