IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111) CRM-M-5749-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision:- 14.11.2025 HXXXX and Anr.

……Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition, inter alia, prays for issuance of appropriate directions to the official-respondents to take action against the private respondents by considering the representation dated 04.01.2024 and other prayers made therein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner No. 2, who happens to be the daughter of Petitioner No. 1, was allegedly been violated by the private respondents on the night of 03.01.2024 at around 11:00 p.m., for which Petitioner No. 1 submitted a written complaint on 04.01.2024. However, the authorities have failed to take any action. It is submitted that the authorities did not even bother to record the statements of the victim and the complainant. Instead, in an attempt to cover up the entire incident, the respondent-authorities have obtained affidavits from 16 villagers stating that no such incident had taken place.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only reason for the inaction on the representation dated 04.01.2024 was the alleged bad antecedents of petitioner No.1, who is involved in certain criminal cases. However, such antecedents cannot be a ground to deny the rights of the victim. It is also submitted that, as a counterblast, the accused lodged an FIR against petitioner No.1 bearing FIR No. 9 dated 06.01.2024, in which the authorities are actively proceeding. In fact, the status report filed is absolutely incorrect, and hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel relies upon the status report and submitted that the present petition is an apparent abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the petitioners had already filed a private complaint on 15.01.2024, in which an action taken report was sought and which have been duly filed before the learned trial Court.

5. Learned State counsel further pointed out that investigation was carried out, however, no such offence or incident had occurred, and the representation and private complaint made by petitioner No.1-complainant was in fact, a counterblast to FIR No. 9 dated 06.01.2024, wherein petitioner No.1 had allegedly beaten the respondents black and blue. Learned State counsel vehemently emphasized that although learned trial Court granted liberty to get the medical examination of the victim conducted by exercising powers under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. However, even after the passage of more than 01 year and 10 months, petitioner No.1 has not get the medical examination of Petitioner No. 2 conducted.

6. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner has failed to provide cogent evidence with regard to the alleged occurrence. Rather it is a strange case where on the one hand, petitioner No. 1 alleges the commission of heinous crime against his own daughter on the night of

03.01.2024 while on the other hand, instead of taking his daughter to a doctor or hospital, he chose to approach a stenographer to get a complaint typed. Moreover, even after the alleged incident the petitioner took 10 days to lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and during this period, there is not even a single averment that any medical relief was provided to the victim.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. The allegations, per se, do not inspire confidence, much less warrant the issuance of any directions. Petitioner No.1 has bad antecedents and is involved in multiple cases. Learned State Counsel submits that, in fact, petitioner No.1 had beaten the accused on 03.01.2024, which led to the lodging of FIR No. 9 against petitioner No.1 on 06.01.2024. Therefore, the entire litigation and the c