Punjab & Haryana HC Declines To Expunge Trial Court's Remark Against Cop For Prima Facie Implicating Innocents In Rape Case For Extortion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to expunge remarks against a police officer who was "prima facie" found to be involved in implicating innocents in a rape case by his alleged partner for extorting money.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal differentiated the High Court Rules which states that the Judges conducting trial are advised not to make adverse observations against Police Officers and other Government Officers, from the present case.

"The Rule is principally adverting to situation arising on account of deficit, ineffective or defective inquiry. Sometimes Courts find that accused is acquitted on account of defective investigation or non-cooperation of the police officials. In such circumstances, more often than not, Courts make adverse remarks against the Investigating Officers. The present case is entirely different," the Court added.

It further said that It is not the case where Trial Court has made observations against the Investigating Officers or any Police official who appeared as witness or was part of investigation whereas it is a case where Trial Court, on the basis of evidence, has prima facie found that role of the petitioner is doubtful and it should be examined by jurisdictional Superintendent of Police

 The Trial Court while acquitting accused persons in rape case had noted in the judgement that the conduct of prosecutrix as a married woman is not above board, and she was having illicit relationship with a Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) posted in Gurugram and involved in falsely implicating innocent persons to extort money.

Hence, the Additional Sessions Court said there is a requirement on the part of police authorities to enquire into whether there is prima facie nexus between the prosecutrix and ASI posted at Gurugram and if they are found involved in implicating innocent persons to extort money, to proceed with against them.

After analysing the submissions, the Court said, "the Trial Court noticed testimony of prosecutrix as well as other witnesses and came to a conclusion that there seems role of the petitioner in the story orchestrated by the prosecutrix. The petitioner and prosecutrix were in relation, thus, Superintendent of Police must independently inquire the matter."

The judge also rejected ASI's contention that remarks should be expunged because he was neither accused, nor Investigating Officer nor witness still adverse observations were made against him, without granting him opportunity of hearing.

The Court said that the principle "no order ensuing even civil consequences should be passed without granting opportunity of hearing" is not absolute.

"It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Courts time and again have held that it is not absolute that hearing should be granted before passing order e.g. while granting sanction to prosecute a Government Servant, there is no need to grant opportunity of hearing though sanction ensues prosecution," it added.

Justice Bansal highlighted that It is not a case of passing order whereas the Trial Court has simply directed the Superintendent of Police to examine act and conduct of the petitioner. 

"He is part of disciplined force. It has come on record that he was having relations with the prosecutrix. The Trial Court has found that the allegations of the prosecutrix were false and she has implicated innocent persons to extort money," the Court added.

The Court further observed that "Rape is a serious offence" and on account of false implications, it becomes difficult for Courts to decipher genuine cases from the bunch of false and fabricated cases. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was forced to ask jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to inquire the matter. 

Stating that, the Trial Court has not held the petitioner guilty whereas the Court has simply asked the Superintendent of Police to inquire into the matter and the  petitioner would certainly get an opportunity, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

Title: XXX v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read/download the order