JUDGMENT

Paramjeet Singh, J.

THE PRAYER:

1. Instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for direction to respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to supply the outcome of representation dated 7.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) given by the petitioner and also for direction to conduct the DNA test of respondent No. 3 - Mann Singh Sarpanch (wrongly mentioned as respondent No. 2 in the petition), petitioner and the daughter of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

THE FACTS:

The facts, as alleged in the petition, are that 12-13 years back, the petitioner was under the influence of respondent No. 3 - Mann Singh, Sarpanch of village Hawas, Rahon Road, Ludhiana. Respondent No. 3 had developed illicit relations with petitioner which continued for many years and out of their illicit relationship a female child has born. It is also alleged that Sarpanch used to force the petitioner to have illicit relations with his friends. When the petitioner refused to have physical relations with him and his friends, respondent No. 3 started black-mailing the petitioner and committing rape upon the petitioner in the year 2009 forcibly without her consent. Petitioner submitted representation to SSP, Ludhiana and to the Police Commissioner, Ludhiana but no action was taken. The petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. M-3165 of 2010 wherein, vide order dated 27.10.2011, a direction was issued to decide the representation within two months. It is submitted that no proper investigation was carried out by the investigating agency, no blood grouping, DNA test of the petitioner, of daughter of the petitioner and of respondent No. 3 has been conducted. Respondent No. 3 is alleged to be an active member of the ruling Akali Dal Party and is the village Sarpanch, has considerable influence on the police. It is also alleged that one Major Singh, a close friend of respondent No. 3 is also posted in the Police Station and has been helping the petitioner.

REPLY BY RESPONDENTS:

2. Notice of motion was issued in this case. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed reply and in the reply it is averred that during preliminary inquiry, allegations of the petitioner were found to be false. Hence, there was no question of conducting DNA test of respondent No. 3. It is also alleged that proceedings u/s 182 IPC had been initiated against the petitioner. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. The allegations have been levelled to wreak vengeance. Earlier, the petitioner had moved complaints against the panchayat members levelling allegation of demolishing her boundary walls. The said complaint was found false.

3. Respondent No. 3 was afforded adequate opportunities to file reply to the petition, but for the reasons best known to him he did not file reply, despite being represented by a Learned Counsel.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that crime against women is increasing every day and the innocent rustic village women do not come out against the influential persons in spite of harassment and their forcible physical exploitation. This is primarily for the reason that no woman, specifically a rustic village woman, will come out because of fear that her honour and dignity may not be maligned. The woman in India approach the courts and authorities only in extreme cases. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was being exploited for the last 12-13 years. A female child out of illicit relationship of petitioner and respondent No. 3 has born. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of the child has been intentionally withheld in order to keep identity of the child confidential, so that her honour and dignity may not be affected in future and may also not affect her marriage and other prospects. Learned counsel further vehemently argued that non filing of reply