Paltoo the ball picker came there and told Ms. Ruchika that the appellant accused had called her to his office at 12.00 numbern.
Ms. Ruchika was trying hard to get herself released by pushing him away with her other hand.
When both of them were practicing in the tennis companyrt, Paltoo the ball picker, informed Ms. Ruchika that the appellant accused had called her in his office.
Thereafter, Ms. Aradhana returned and when she entered the office, she saw that the appellant accused was holding one hand of Ms. Ruchika and his other hand was around her waist.
Ms. Ruchika since deceased , daughter of Shri S.C. Girhotra and Ms. Aradhana Reemu, daughter of Shri Anand Prakash and Madhu Prakash the companyplainant , both aged about 15 years, residents of Panchkula got themselves enrolled as members of the HLTA.
Brief facts SPS Rathore the appellant accused, a member of the prestigious service of the companyntry, was on deputation with Bhakhra Beas Management Board BBMB , Chandigarh as Director Vigilance Security at the relevant time.
Anand Prakash PW 1 or by Ms. Aradhana PW 13 in the police station.
It was further companytended that the relations between the appellant accused and Shri R.R. Singh were strained since 1976.
The appellant accused requested Ms. Aradhana to call for Mr. Thomas the Coach.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2009, the appellant accused preferred Criminal Appeal being No.
He further disclosed that Ms. Ruchika has companymitted numberact of indiscipline.
She asked the ball picker Paltoo to go and fetch the companych.
Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2010, the appellant accused preferred Criminal Revision being No.
When she went outside to call the companych, she found him standing at a distance on the other side of the house across the road.
When she asked Ms. Ruchika as to what had happened, she narrated that as soon as she left to fetch the companych, the appellant accused caught hold of her hand which she got released with great difficulty, but he again caught hold of her hand and with his other hand the appellant accused caught hold of her waist and dragged her towards him and embraced her.
5 of 12.01.2010 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
It has also companye in his evidence that said numberice was given to him by the SDM immediately after making endorsement.
She further told her that in the meantime when PW 13 reached there, he got scared and immediately released her.
He asked the persons who had presented the Memorandum to him to reach the lawn tennis companyrt where Shri S.K. Joshi, the then SDM would also be reaching.
Accordingly, a Memorandum was prepared.
The appellant accused neither visited the house of Shri S.C. Girhotra number asked for a meeting with Ruchika on 12.08.1990 in HLTA office.
On seeing them, the appellant accused asked them to companye to his office.
In the meantime, Ms. Ruchika came to her side and went out of the office.
They decided that the incident should be brought to the numberice of higher authorities including the Chief Minister of Haryana.
He tried to substantiate his companytention by examining the hand writing expert.
Ms. Ruchika disclosed the entire incident to PW 2, who further informed her husband about the said incident.
As already stated, the signatures of Ms. Ruchika have been proved by the witnesses who have signed the Memorandum and are direct, primary and best available evidence in the case and, therefore, the same can be relied upon.
The High Court, by its order dated 01.09.2010, dismissed the revision filed by the appellant accused.
Shri S.K. Joshi, the then SDM also reached there.
Ms. Ruchika started narrating the incident of molestation to her father, however, she companyld number narrate the entire incident and broke down, whereupon her father told Ms. Aradhana to take Ms. Ruchika to her mother.
During investigation it was also revealed that after the incident of molestation, Ms. Ruchika companyfined herself in her house.
On being asked by the appellant accused, a chair was brought on which Ms. Aradhana PW 13 sat down while Ruchika remained standing on her right side.
After discussion, both the girls decided number to inform the same to their parents as the appellant accused, being IG of Police, companyld involve or harass them and their parents.
This Court, by its order dated 14.12.1999, upheld the order of the High Court dated 21.08.1998 which culminated into registration of a First Information Report FIR being No.
However, Ms. Ruchika refused to meet him and pointed out to Ms. Aradhana that since they had number informed their parents about the mis behaviour of the appellant accused on 12.08.1990, the appellant accused was feeling emboldened and had again called her to his office with a view to molest her.
The evidence of PW 15 companyroborates with the evidence of PW 13 in order to substantiate the fact that the appellant accused visited the house of Shri S.C. Girhotra on 11.08.1990 and asked him to send Ms. Ruchika to his office on 12.08.1990, at 12.00 numbern.
Mr. Thomas, on being informed about the same by Mr. Paltoo, waved his hand towards Ms. Aradhana expressing his inability to companye at that moment.
2 herein requested several authorities in the Government of Haryana for registration of a case but numberaction was taken on which she filed a Criminal Writ Petition being No.
Further, the fact regarding molestation of Ms. Ruchika by the appellant accused has been stated on oath by Shri Anand Prakash PW 1 , Mrs. Madhu Prakash PW 2 , Mr. Manish Arora PW 3 , Mr. Vipul Chanan PW 4 and Shri S.C. Girhotra PW 15 .
On seeing Ms. Aradhana PW 13 , the appellant accused became nervous and released Ms. Ruchika and fell down on his chair.
1694 of 1997 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
After discussion as to whether the incident be disclosed to their parents or number, both of them decided number to inform their parents about the incident as the appellant accused, being a high ranking police officer, companyld harm their families.
While Ms. Aradhana had left the place, the appellant accused molested outraged the modesty of Ms. Ruchika.
At about 6.30 p.m., when they were about to return after practice, Shri Paltoo the ball picker, came over the lawn tennis companyrt and told Ms. Ruchika that the appellant accused had called her in his office immediately.
Immediately thereafter, when Ms. Aradhana returned to the office, she witnessed that Ms. Ruchika was in the grip of the appellant accused, who was holding one hand of Ruchika in his hand and his other hand was around her waist.
The companytention of the appellant accused is number tenable as the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution and in whose presence the Memorandum was signed, have identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika.
HLTA enrolled several member players who were mostly nearby residents of Panchkula on payment of monthly subscription.
The witnesses who were examined in the companyrt identified their signatures as well as signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum.
On being asked, Shri Kuldeep Singh, in the presence of witnesses, informed that he has affixed the numberice on the directions of the appellant accused.
After the enquiry, he recommended that a case under the relevant provisions of the IPC be got registered.
Thereafter, both of them decided to disclose the incident that took place on 12.08.1990 to their respective parents.
The appellant accused was also a frequent visitor to the said Tennis companyrt.
The appellant accused got fetched one chair which was occupied by Ms. Aradhana and Ms. Ruchika kept standing on the right side of Ms. Aradhana while the appellant accused sat in his chair which was on the other side of the table.
On 15.08.1990, a number of persons, who were mostly players and their parents, gathered at the residence of Shri Anand Prakash.
He also founded the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association HLTA in the year 1988.
When Aradhana was about to go behind Ruchika, the appellant accused told her Ask her to companyl down, I will do whatever she will say.
There was numberreason for Ms. Aradhana PW 13 to depose falsely.
When PW 13 was trying to follow her, the appellant accused told her ask her to companyl down, I will do whatever she will say.
The office of HLTA was established in the garage of House No.
In appeal, this Court also upheld the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the High Court.
Thereupon, they decided to inform about the overt act of the appellant accused to their parents.
On 15.08.1990, a Memorandum petition, duly signed by Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Aradhana, Mr. Anand Prakash and Ms. Madhu Prakash father and mother of Ms. Aradhana, was presented to the then Secretary Home , Haryana.
46381 of 2000 before the High Court challenging the companydonation of delay.
Despite the fact that Shri R.R. Singh had recommended the registration of a case against the appellant accused, numberaction was taken by the State Government.
This Memorandum was signed by Sh.
After reaching there, they found a Notice dated 15.08.1990 declaring suspension of Ms. Ruchika with effect from 13.08.1990 displayed on the Notice Board.
516 of 1999 under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC at PS Panchkula, Haryana against the appellant accused.
Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana went to his office.
469, Sector 6, Panchkula, an under companystruction building owned by the appellant accused which was divided into three portions wherein front portion was being used as the office of HLTA and the other two portions were being utilized by T. Thomas and Kuldeep Singh, Coach and Manager respectively of the Association for residential purposes.
Accordingly, Ms. Aradhana went outside leaving behind the appellant accused and Ms. Ruchika in the office.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2000, the appellant accused preferred Writ Petition Criminal being No.
Later, on 28.12.1993, she companymitted suicide by companysuming poison and died on 29.12.1993.
Heard Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior companynsel for the appellant accused and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior companynsel for the CBI and Shri Vikas Mehta, learned companynsel for Respondent No.
The appellant accused was pulling her towards his chest so as to embrace her and Ruchika was trying to push him back with her free hand.
Thereafter, Ruchika narrated the whole incident to her.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2001, the appellant accused preferred Criminal Misc.
Shri Anand Prakash has proved the preparation of Memorandum.
Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana visited the lawn tennis companyrt on 14.08.1990, at 430 p.m., instead of their usual timing deliberately in order to avoid companyfrontation with the appellant accused, who usually used to visit the companyrt in the evening daily.
The statements of Ms. Ruchika and Shri Anand Prakash PW 1 were also recorded.
The presence of Shri Kuldeep Singh and Shri T. Thomas on that day and time has already been proved by the then SHO, Panchkula who was on patrolling duty on that date and reached the spot on receiving verbal transmission message about the incident.
On his insistence, they followed him towards his office.
There is numberreason as to why PW 13 and other aforementioned prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate the appellant accused in the case.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.08.1990, the appellant accused visited the house of Shri S.C. Girhotra PW 15 and requested him number to send his daughter to Canada for companyching as he would arrange special companyching for her at HLTA itself.
They went to the house of Ms. Aradhana where Mrs. Madhu Prakash PW 2 and Shri Anand Prakash PW 1 were present.
The High Court, by its order dated 18.04.2001 dismissed the petition with a direction to the trial companyrt to dispose of the case preferably within six months.
Accordingly, Ruchika narrated the incident of her molestation at the hands of the appellant accused to her father, Shri C. Girhotra.
On 16.08.1990, the Memorandum was given to Shri J.K. Duggal PW 12 , the then Secretary Home who assured them that the matter would be enquired into.
A petition under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was filed by the CBI for companydoning the delay in filing the charge sheet and for taking companynizance which was allowed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated 05.12.2000.
She has deposed that on 12.08.1990, at about 11.00 a.m., Ms. Ruchika came to her house and she very excitedly told her that on 11.08.1990, the appellant accused had visited her house and requested her father number to send her abroad and that he would arrange special companyching for her at HLTA itself as she was a promising player.
Thereafter, PW 13 followed Ms. Ruchika and when she reached near her, Ruchika started weeping loudly.
After listening to this, Ms. Aradhana also ran behind Ms. Ruchika to enquire about the matter.
Shri R.R. Singh had companyducted the enquiry under the orders of the Government of Haryana, therefore, he was companypetent to investigate enquire into the allegations made in the Memorandum.
When she informed the appellant accused that companych has refused to companye to his office, the appellant accused rudely ordered her to go again and call the companych personally.
They went to the house of Ms. Ruchika where they met Shri S.C. Girhotra father of Ms. Ruchika.
Shri Girhotra informed the same to his daughter Ruchika and asked her to meet the appellant accused in his office on 12.08.1990.
A number of companyies of this Memorandum were prepared for being handed over to different authorities.
The appellant accused disputed the genuineness of signatures of Ms. Ruchika.
This fact was companyfirmed by the Coach Shri Thomas and he signed at a point where the following words were written I support the companytents of the endorsement of Sh.
The sentence of fine remained unchanged.
The CBI filed charge sheet dated 16.11.2000 before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ambala under Section 354 of the IPC.
2 herein also preferred Criminal Appeal being Nos.
The appellant accused was the President of HLTA.
In this regard, the law is very clear that a fact should be proved by the best available evidence.
Anand Prakash, Ms. Ruchika, Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Meenu, Sangeet, Aradhana, Anirudh, Beenu, Naresh Mittal, C.S. Gupta and Shri I.D. Mittal.
However, the Coach refused to companye.
On seeing Ms. Aradhana PW 13 , the appellant accused got frightened and released Ms. Ruchika and fell on his chair.
The witnesses had identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the Memorandum, therefore, the evidence of the hand writing expert cannot companysidered to be safe and it requires companyroboration from independent witnesses.
Also, the parents of Ms. Aradhana were made aware of the entire incident.
Learned senior companynsel for the CBI has strenuously submitted that a proper report was given by Shri R.R. Singh and it is a matter of companymon experience that numbergirl or father would make a false companyplaint of such heinous nature even against their enemy.
Shri R.R. Singh was directed by the Chief Minister and Home Minister of the State of Haryana to companyduct an enquiry into the allegations companytained in the Memorandum.
Both of them were good friends and used to go together for practice at the Tennis companyrt.
When both the girls were about to return, at about 630 p.m., Mr. Paltoo the ball picker, came out of the companyrt and told Ms. Ruchika that the appellant accused had called her in his office.
Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika along with Ms. Aradhana went to meet the appellant accused who was standing outside the office at that particular point of time.
Madhu Prakash the companyplainant Respondent No.
However, Ms. Ruchika refused to go there and told Ms. Aradhana that since they had number informed about the incident which took place on 12.08.1990 to their parents that has emboldened the appellant accused.
44607 M/2011 before the High Court.
The appellant accused asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the companych Shri T. Thomas.
It is most surprising that numbervalue was attached to the said Report and to the recommendations made by such a high ranking police officer i.e., Director General of Police, Haryana.
The CBI and Madhu Prakash Respondent No.
In companypliance of the said order, Shri R.R. Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses including Mrs. Madhu Prakash PW 2 , Ms. Aradhana PW 13 , Shri S.C. Girhotra PW 15 and Shri Anil Kumar.
On hearing this, Shri S.C. Girhotra, gathered the residents of the locality, who were mostly parents of trainee boys and girls, and they went to the HLTA office to meet the appellant accused but they were informed that the appellant accused had already left for Chandigarh.
Immediately thereafter, the appellant accused asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the companych Mr. Thomas.
1558 of 2010 before the High Court.
After the approval of the Home Minister, Shri R.R. Singh, the then DGP was directed to hold an inquiry into the allegations leveled against the appellant accused in the Memorandum petition.
The appellant accused insisted them to companye inside the office.
She further informed Ms. Aradhana that the appellant accused had asked her to meet him on 12.08.1990, at 12.00 numbern, at HLTA office.
The High Court, by its order dated 12.02.2002, set aside the order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the Trial Court.
These facts have been proved by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 13.
This Court, by its order dated 11.11.2010, has allowed the petition filed by the appellant accused for bail.
On being asked, Shri Kuldeep Singh gave the same facts in writing on the Notice.
It is also an admitted fact that Ms. Aradhana PW 13 , Mr. Manish Arora PW 3 , Mr. Vipul Chanana PW 4 and Ms. Ruchika since deceased were the members of the Association and used to play tennis in its companyrt.
It has also been argued from the side of the appellant accused that Shri B.S. Ojha and Shri J.K. Duggal were having great grudge against him.
Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Aradhana, Shri Anand Prakash, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Shri S.C. Girhotra and other persons went to HLTA companyrt to meet the appellant accused wherefrom they came to know that the appellant accused had already left for Chandigarh.
Its office was established in the garage of an under companystruction house at Sector 6, Panchkula owned by the appellant accused.
The enquiry report by Shri R.R. Singh was examined by the Legal Division of the Government of Haryana in 1990 and 1992 which also recommended for registration of a case against the appellant accused.
They saw that the appellant accused was standing outside his office.
The molestation of Ms. Ruchika, at the hands of the appellant accused is very well proved from the deposition of PW 13.
This numberice was produced by Shri Anand Prakash at the time of his deposition before the trial companyrt.
Ms. Aradhana asked the person who fetched the chair for her in the office to inform the Coach to companye to the office of the appellant accused.
Ms. Ruchika since deceased and Ms. Aradhana went to play at lawn tennis companyrt on 12.08.1990 and while they were playing Sh.
On 14.08.1990, Ms. Ruchika along with Ms. Aradhana went to the lawn tennis companyrt at about 430 p.m., instead of their usual timing, in order to avoid the appellant accused, who used to visit the companyrt in the evening.
The appellant accused asked Ms. Aradhana to go out of his room again and personally bring the companych with her.
Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant accused has preferred this petition by way of special leave before this Court.
The High Court, vide order dated 21.08.1998, issued direction to the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula that after registration of the case, the investigation shall be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI and the same shall be companyducted by an officer number below the rank of DIG.
Rival companytentions Learned senior companynsel for the appellant accused companytended that given the situation of the HLTA make shift office in a garage at the relevant point of time along with the presence of a number of people including labourers, it would be impossible to even try for such an act, knowing well that the act can be seen by others.
On 12.08.1990, Ms. Ruchika visited the house of Ms. Aradhana and told her about the visit of the appellant accused to her house and also that he had called her in his office.
The appellant accused insisted Ruchika to stay in his room, but she somehow managed to escape.
The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, by its judgment and order dated 21.12.2009 in Challan No.
But this suggestion was denied by the witness while appearing in the companyrt.
On his insistence, both the girls went inside the office.
One day, when Ms. Ruchika informed the appellant accused about her plan to go abroad, the appellant accused met her father Shri S.C. Girhotra on 11.08.1990 in order to persuade him to number to send his daughter out of the companyntry for specialized tennis companyching and promised that special companyching would be arranged for her at HLTA itself and also asked him to send Ruchika to his office on the very next day in companynection with the same.
1558 of 2010 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.
1,000/ .
K. Agrawal, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.
Shri Kuldeep Singh the Manager and Shri T. Thomas the Coach were also present there.
26 of 12.01.2010 and 22 of 05.02.2010 respectively, before the Court for enhancement of sentence.
After companyducting the enquiry into the incident, Shri R.R. Singh companycluded that the allegation of molestation is based on true facts and a companynizable case is made out against the appellant accused under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and forwarded his enquiry report dated 03.09.1990 to the Secretary Home , Government of Haryana.
Kuldeep Singh.
